While the findings on discrimination based on holding meritocracy as a value are interesting, the premise of the article--that meritocracy is wrong--is itself w

While the findings on discrimination based on holding meritocracy as a value are interesting, the premise of the article--that meritocracy is wrong--is itself wrong. Or at least, it's arguing against a strawman version of meritocracy in which everyone gets exactly what they deserve, but I don't know anyone who believes that. The idea of a meritocracy is that you can improve your outcome by working hard and smart. That doesn't guarantee that you'll do better, or even as well, as everyone who works less hard or smart than you. Weight lifting is a perfect example here. Train hard; gain strength. Train smart; gain more strength with less effort. But, there's always going to be someone who gets stronger with less effort than you. Does that mean you shouldn't bother with weightlifting? That it's all a scam?