I’d like to first point out the kind of Psychology you are using is called Phenomenology. It basically says "is what I experience generalizable into a rational view of reality".
The quality or nature of a given experience is often referred to by the term qualia, whose archetypical exemplar is "redness". For example, we might ask, "Is my experience of redness the same as yours?" While it is difficult to answer such a question in any concrete way, the concept of intersubjectivity is often used as a mechanism for understanding how it is that humans are able to empathise with one another's experiences, and indeed to engage in meaningful communication about them. The phenomenological formulation of Being-in-the-World, where person and world are mutually constitutive, is central here.
One such individual reason for which a person oft is criticizing is they are attempting to bring the world into the psychological reality to which they understand. Their redness and the situation’s redness are so different that they must conform that which is external.
However no none is fully able to empathize with the group of nitpickers in order to gain a set of inter-subjectivity because their reasons for being that way are too diverse. (This is the reason micro expression will, without volumes of specific personality data, fail.)
We group them all together and call them critics. As a group they are well studied.
The psychology of criticism is primarily concerned with:
the motivation, purpose or intent which people have for making criticisms - healthy or unhealthy.
the meaning of criticism for the self, and for others - positive or negative.
the effect which criticism has on other people - good or bad.
how people respond to criticisms, or cope with them - negatively or positively.
the quantity and quality of criticism required to achieve the desired effect or outcome.
the form in which criticisms are delivered - effective or ineffective.
how people learn to give and receive criticism successfully.
the sublimation, repression or denial of criticism.
-wikipedia Psychology of criticism
Criticism may be given in good or bad faith. A good faith criticism is intended to help the person improve and is willing to work within that person’s limitations until they are able to make the improvement. Bath faith critics is given for the purpose of simply speaking ill of the other person. Here on the SE you’ll mostly find bath faith criticism. People seeking to advance themselves with positive votes and down voting others for their own pleasure leaving no comments. Trying to help someone in reality when you disapprove of their behavior is dangerous especially when done in public because they may reject the help and try to punish you. However when you’re criticized its unhealthy to initially assume that criticism is in bath faith. You should approach each instance as having no history for who knows we all are infallible and we can improve ourselves. That is to say if someone attacks you for who you are perhaps saying your vocabulary is not expansive enough, your education is lacking or in general you’re a bad “insert profession” then it’s safe and very healthy to assume that attempt to correct was in fact an attempt to degrade. People who repeatedly offend in such manners should be avoided and ignored.
Sometimes people who act in bad faith are simply unskilled in how to criticize without harming the psyche of the individual receiving criticism but they may also be a bully someone who derives pleasure from encroaching on another person’s individuality. In your question you describe a person who needs to control and such a person would be a bully. Perhaps a controlling perfectionist. The likes of which also abound on the SE and in the normal workplace.
A positive way to deal with criticism is to self-criticize before publication. Healthy examine your work from the view of an external observer. In such ways you know you did the best of your ability to correct what mistakes remained hidden from you. Self-criticism can rise to the level of unconstructive unhealthy behavior for that we must always remain watchful.
More central to the issue consistently correcting people can be a control issue. Control mania can be an actual symptom of a greater disease. Like some perfectionist can have OCD anxiety related symptoms in connection with losing control.
One of the most prevalent fears people have is that of losing control. This is the fear that if you don't manage to control the outcome of future events, something terrible will happen. People who are chronic sufferers from such losing-control anxiety keep themselves continuously in a heightened state of stress with only brief, unsatisfying intermissions between fears.
The crux of the problem is the demand for certainty in a world that is always tentative and uncertain. It is precisely this unrealistic demand that creates the anxiety. You think that you must accurately predict and manage the future, not just have some probabilistic and uncertain handle on it.
-Psychology Today The Fear of Losing Control
What Can Cause Control Issues?
Reasons for control issues may be related to number of different things including:
• Traumatic or abusive life experiences
• Failed or failing relationships
• Low or damaged self-esteem
• A person's beliefs, values, and faith
How Can Psychotherapy Help Control Issues?
In psychotherapy, client and therapist work together to understand the emotional base(s) for the painful and controlling requirements directed by self and others. In determining the emotion(s) behind each issue and need for control, it is possible to recover from self-damage and rebuild and strengthen relationships damaged by the control. As control is rooted in fear, the fear(s) associated with each issue may be addressed and coping and recovery may begin.
-goodtherapy.org Therapy for Control Issues
Now let’s delve into your finial question the basis of competiveness and criticism. All things psychology begin in biology and are brought out through conscious and subconscious training and preprogramming. We are born with bodies which function in a modern society but our templates are based in a more primal times when such urges were not controlled by the outer levels of the brain. We have evolved executive functions which govern self-control but at one time control of the actions of the self was an external force. The male warriors were trouble makers in early societies who were trouble makers:
The social science literature contains numerous examples of human tribalism and parochialism—the tendency to categorize individuals on the basis of their group membership, and treat ingroup members benevolently and outgroup members malevolently. We hypothesize that this tribal inclination is an adaptive response to the threat of coalitional aggression and intergroup conflict perpetrated by ‘warrior males’ in both ancestral and modern human environments. Here, we describe how male coalitional aggression could have affected the social psychologies of men and women differently and present preliminary evidence from experimental social psychological studies testing various predictions from the ‘male warrior’ hypothesis. Finally, we discuss the theoretical implications of our research for studying intergroup relations both in humans and non-humans and discuss some practical implications.
In such way the “male warrior” exist in those who consciously or unconsciously promote themselves today and there exists an instinct to remove their ability to cause the “problem”. In a manner similar to societal protection often which is defunct and not necessary.
Further we can draw from the “male warrior” hypothesis is the sex driven competition needs of males. The ability to remove a male from competition through murder or character assassination is a highly evolved trait. It betters your chance of reproduction and your genes chances of survival.
We know however that the highly evolved Utopian society is not filled with violence but instead thrives on love, peace and transcending our biology.