A question is if we want a meritocracy at all, and whether such a model would be suitable for everyone, and further how merit is even judged; the problem isn't

A question is if we want a meritocracy at all, and whether such a model would be suitable for everyone, and further how merit is even judged; the problem isn't as you've mentioned "weirdness", it's that people can be treated worse for not even being "weird" at all. There have been various criticisms levelled at the idea of "colur blindness", and I think that when people say they are in favour of a meritocracy, they are in favour of continuing this idea that people start on a level field in which everyone's merit can be fairly assessed. Merit is assessed by each member of the team, and thus personal bias comes into play. The mere operation on the assesment of merit is insufficient to remove these biases, if they do exist. I don't like the idea of "sit down and do your work", beacuse to me it feels dehumanising. Yes, I know this is how "the system" works in the "real world" but I think this attitude is stopping us from realising that when working in a team we are all human and human issues need to be addressed. So in this sense I can appeal to you too in saying that efficiency may indeed be compromised with the "sit down and work" attitude when some people are clearly facing problems. Our mode of production does not optimise for the human side of interaction, nor the psychological aspect of the effects of production (joint or not) (i.e alienation) and for this reason I would say that we're already too meritocratic. People turn out to be pretty poor judges of merit, at least from the arguments I have seen. Meritocracy can lead to someone regarded as more experienced or doing more "important" work shutting down someone else who has legitimate criticisms.