Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is that we're being sold the 'meritocracy' narrative in the academical and technical circles. You often see it in HN discussions about hiring decisions (reasoning involving the "top 1% programmers" without any indication as to what that means exactly). If you have the introverted, dilligent, keeping-your-head-down, got-high-marks-at-school mentality that I assume is prevalent on HN, it can come as a shock…
Or you simply view being sociable as part of Merit. In fact I'd wager that to do well in almost any job you need to be sociable. Merit is not just about technical ability.
How is this really "Merit"? I'm "sociable" in the sense that due to my familly on my mother's side, i'm very used to talk to small business CEOs/CTOs, and from where i lived and studied, i'm comfortable talking to people who grew in a lot less fortunate households. I don't have one friend among those who did well in the corporate world. Because being "sociable" is more about cultural inheritance than anything. I am an introvert, but i was taught how to live with it (theatre, playing violin in front of a crowd, stuff like that). It was not particularly expensive in my country, so it is true that anyone could afford to do the same, thus "Merit", one could argue, but inheriting my grandfather violin, having my mother doing an art degree (and a medical one) and my father working as a social worker while being __extremely__ well taught tapestry then painting gave me conversation subject and "useless" knowledge for ages. Because knowing the reasoning behind impressionism, which impressionist school did what and how it evolved did a lot more than knowing how to code a VM for my current career.