[logicchop]

The article sounds like it wants to criticize "meritocracy", but it really just ends up criticizing the measures of merit that someone (strawman?) apparently has? If it were really critical of "meritocracy" it would be advocating for random lotteries for jobs, or promotions, or whatever. But nobody wants that, not even radical "anti-meritocrats." All they seem to actually want is a different measure of merit, but then what's the trade-off? We'll get a different elite and a different underclass? I don't see the point. It would be different, of course, if this guy were arguing that, for example, by using a different measure of merit, a business could improve its performance, or we could get better doctors, or our software wouldn't have so many bugs. But I didn't catch anything that suggested the author has anything at all like this in mind..

[cratermoon]

> criticizing the measures of merit

Yes, that is the core of the criticisms of meritocracy. Who decides what's worth merit? The ones who have already accomplished certain ends decide that those ends are meritorious.

[errantmind]

Indeed, although, if we don't generalize too broadly, I prefer it this way. I don't want to be obligated to follow / hire people without any accomplishments, just because the people without accomplishments decide it isn't fair to them

[cratermoon]

> people without any accomplishments

Everyone has accomplishments. Problems arise when people the people deciding that some accomplishments are better than others overvalue the ones they have and undervalue the ones they don't. Remember when Google only hired people with college degrees? Notice how companies devalue degrees from HBUs? It's a farce to pretend that these are objective measures instead of just ego-stroking.