The lack of wording to describe good extremes is, likely, because there can not be any good extremes. The extremism, itself.
A person can be extremely normal, healthy, etc, in terms of mental acuity, and, physical strength, but, these traits, themselves, aren't extremes. Even the loftiest theories and other such works require a balanced view of things. Even great physical strength requires efficient muscles.
Being extremely generous, in the sense of handing out your life's savings, say, to strangers on a street corner, may be considered crazy behavior. Similarly, an extreme lottery win of tens of millions of dollars often leads to the complete demise of winners. Relatively extreme acts of charity pale in comparison to incremental sustained good in the community by keeping the overall wealth there. Some cures may be worse than others, as require more hardship by the patient, but, cures, themselves, aren't extreme. Trace amounts of poisons, in balanced amounts, not too much, or little, can cure us. Here, there is extreme accuracy, but, accuracy, itself, is about a delicate balance of things.
In general, it's much easier to quickly tear things down than to properly build them up with incremental or measured good acts. Haven't IQ's risen markedly with the overall health of the population, in the last hundred years? And, on the decline, again? If I recall, it takes millions of years for a species' genetic material to normalize on its own.
In other words, a wrong can be very wrong in many ways, whereas a right is just right in just one way. Although questions may be hard to answer, the answers, themselves, over long periods of time, remain reasoned out (in a balanced way). There are infinitely many ways to solve a given problem, but, each way admits only one overall solution to it, in which one solution may be more direct, elegant, etc, than another, but, each is still a matter of a balanced perspective and set of skills.