The biggest problem with the RAW shooters they do not know how to shoot a perfect JPEG on the spot.
The real problem here is that many raw shooters don't know how to achieve an optimal raw exposure. They expose for the "perfect JPEG" as you put it and, therefore, do not achieve the biggest potential advantage of shooting raw. See bottom of post for more information
As an aside, the notion that one type of shooter is a better, smarter or more knowledgeable photographer simply because they shoot one way or the other is absurd. The only thing such a claim proves is that the person making the claim is NOT among the better, smarter and more knowledgeable photographers.
They go to their computer (time consuming) and they are forgotten how the scene really was and than they give a certain twist to their photo's thinking that was the original scene.
And how would you know that's the case? And how do you know that your "perfect jpeg" that looked "perfect" on you camera's LCD or EVF in the field looks perfect on your monitor or your target audience's monitors? What about when it's printed on glossy paper with a dye-based printer? What about when it's printed on matte paper with a pigment-based printer?
And what's the correct white balance? The WB that looks "identical" when your eyes are adjusted to the scene or the white balance that looks correct when you're viewing the reulting image under very different lighting conditions?
Do the test and you should be glad, do not use the extremes because that photo was not good enough right from the start.
JPEG shooters can take images to the extremes just as easily as raw shooters. Regardless, it's a question of taste and not a question of format.
The RAW shooters show you always very extreme lighting examples and think or say look at that what i have gain back, i say shoot your JPEG properly and than you gain all the profit from JPEG shooting.
Most photographers who choose to shoot JPEG+raw are exposing for the JPEG (what looks right to them in the EVF or what the in-camera metering is telling them to do). If they were really exposing for optimal RAW capture, they'd be utilizing an ETTR strategy based on monitoring critical highlight exposure and intelligent increase of ISO as a last resort. That strategy will maximize dynamic range and minimize noise with often clearly visible advantages in increased detail and decreased noise in shadows, blue-skies and other lower midtones, decreased posterization in tonal gradients, decreased blown highlights in clouds and light sources. However, it will very often result in the jpeg being too bright overall or too dark overall with all sorts of shadow/highlight problems that can't be satisfactorily corrected in postprocessing. The ONLY valid reason to shoot JPEG+raw if you're primarily a raw shooter is to get the benefits of viewing the magnified jpeg to check on correct focus/resolution post capture.
So...your original claim has a kernal of truth to it with respect to raw shooters who don't know how to correctly expose for raw (and there are many out there in that boat), but in the broader sense your claim is complete hooey. If you know what you're doing, shooting raw will almost always be the better option for getting the best image quality.
