Western civilization is based on merit and it is based on being very competitive. (It's true in your mates, your social standing, your financial situation, etc) That's the reason for the improvement books.
The book Moneyball talks about this. Well I thought it would be about baseball, but it was kind of about our ability to judge merit. It's hard even in a measurement driven sport like baseball. Sports are arguably the purist meritocracy, yet scouts were routinely missing on their evaluation of talent.
Sadly, in most fields of employment, measure of merit is either hard or downright impossible. Hence, people have to invest a ton of time into creating an illusion of superior competence. Just look at developers - nerd-posturing discussions in the office, chasing latest frameworks, faking passion by doing open-source commits etc. It's a sad world we live in.
I'm just saying the West doesn't have positions that are based on how close you are to the king, family connections, caste, or other mystical reasons.
The funny thing that I've gotten in response is that people seem to believe that merit is only based on how your technical skills are. That's just one part of the job in the tech field.
On the contrary, there are many positions which are filled based on connections and belonging to a certain elite. That may not be prevalent in tech, but that's because tech is viewed as unglamorous, hard and boring work, and who would want to do that. But, in fields such as politics, diplomacy, professorships on major universities, directors of museums and countless others of major influence, the candidates very often get selected on the basis on family connections, or at least belonging to a certain clique. Of course, the candidate must meet some minimum requirements for perceived competency (a diploma from a top school, strong CV otherwise), but there's plenty of such people and, amongst them, connections will decide on who will get the position.
