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..