[abhayhegde]

> The implication here is that everyone has one best place, but in reality there are many local maximums.

This is even better than what the article argues and thus not an antithesis. The author tries to convince us that there exists atleast a place for everyone, not that there aren't many.

> The idea that we have one “best” fit is the self-help equivalent of “perfect is the enemy of good”.

Again, it's not that there is one "best". The idea is everyone can be valuable through atleast one means. I don't see how that is related to perfectionism.