I agree, but the synopsis relies too heavily on extreme outliers to make it’s case. Bill Gates was not a great programmer with a bit of luck. He was an ok programmer (IIRC, the only code we’ve ever seen from him is the QBasic game Nibbles) who was a nepo baby with family on the board at IBM where he got his first deal. This is the case for many other billionaires we are told to worship. Maybe they didn’t all come the billionaire class, but they had plenty of resources available, access to extracurricular education as kids, and these kids weren’t worried about their next meal growing up.

So just from the synopsis, there’s not really a strong case against meritocracy. The bamboo ceiling that discriminates against Asian Americans in the workforce, and other institutional racism prevents true meritocracy. We also have this fixation, and it probably comes from Western culture in general, that when an invention or a new product comes out, we highlight and celebrate one person and that person is the “pioneer” or “inventor” of the project. From Neil Armstrong to Steve Jobs to Elon Musk, the media and our history books ignore the bureaucracy and teamwork of tens of thousands of people needed to bring a project to success. Safety experts, engineers, janitors, food services, logistics, HVAC teams, all important part of the process. The media also tend to reward grifters like that guy who was supposedly the inventor of Firefox a few years ago, and allow the “cult of genius” to run too far in our narratives. It’s always the story of a single white guy with a good idea. Except in reality, it isn’t that at all.

Finally, the reward for being “lucky” or whatever is far too high compared to the threat of just being “not lucky.” A “lucky” person who worked hard and who is successful and never has to work again in their life and can afford to launch their kids in a way where they can live comfortable lives is one thing, I don’t have a problem with that.

But to be “lucky” to the point where you alone have more money than a majority of mankind combined is another. There should be upper limits to wealth, and these feedback cycles do a poor job at ensuring the reward for success is distributed evenly to everybody who took part. Meanwhile the person who is equally talented/important but not as “lucky” still has to worry about their next paycheck, food on the table, and medical bankruptcy from a diagnosis or accident.

Less billionaires. Less starving kids. Free healthcare and education. Thanks for sharing.

Meritocracy has become a leading social ideal. Politicians across the ideological spectrum continually return to the theme that the rewards of life—money, power, jobs, university admission—should be distributed according to skill and effort. The most common metaphor is the ‘even playing field’ upon which players can rise to the position that fits their merit. Conceptually and morally, meritocracy is presented as the opposite of systems such as hereditary aristocracy, in which one’s social position is determined by the lottery of birth. Under meritocracy, wealth and advantage are merit’s rightful compensation, not the fortuitous windfall of external events.

The central argument is a bit self contradictory: believing in meritocracy makes the world less merit based.

I see the value in the argument though. We assign far too much credit to skill that was actually luck and circumstance. The author doesn’t provide an alternative though. Even with this flaw I’m inclined to believe striving towards a meritocracy is still the best course of action until a better option comes along.

When you’re starving you don’t refuse food because it isn’t your favorite, you eat it and try to find better food next meal. The author didn’t give us better food, just pointed out we aren’t eating what we want.