The rejection of a nickname should be a red flag

A man’s choice about his name says a lot about him. Some names are destined for nicknames, and those that reject these predetermined, perfectly palatable nicknames in favor of their formal and complete name leave me wondering what might be wrong with them.

A Matthew, for instance, who rejects the nickname Matt.

A Peter who rejects the nickname Pete.

A Michael who rejects the nickname Mike.

A Daniel who rejects the nickname Dan.

What causes these people to require their full name under all circumstances, when a shortened form of the name is universally accepted?

I have to believe that there is something seriously wrong with these people.

A failure of confidence, perhaps?

An uncommonly strong attachment to their mothers?

A bizarre infatuation with anything alphabetical?

I have to assume that few of them ever played sports in any serious way, because shouting “Daniel, go deep!” or “Michael, I’m open!” just does not happen on the field of play.

Sports were made for nicknames.

That said, certain rejections of nicknames are more acceptable than others.  It’s reasonable, for example, for a Charles to reject a Charlie or a Chuck, since both nicknames change the tenor of the name completely.

It’s also fine for a Robert to decide if he will be using Bob or Rob as the shortened form of his name.

But a David rejecting the nickname Dave? Or a Jeffrey rejecting Jeff?

“Oh no, please don’t call me Jeff. I prefer Jeffrey at all times, please.”

Am I wrong in thinking that there is clearly something wrong with these people?