I'm really sympathetic to the impulse that led to this article, but I think it's missing something central: The structure of the economy.

The word "inequality" ("inequalities", actually) appears only twice, in one short paragraph, and it's to unfocus the emphasis, away from just wealth, to also include respect.

Then the article, which bemoans an overemphasis on IQ and on the individual, suggests a variety of alternative measures by which we can determine which individuals get a slice of the decaying pie. There's something self-contradictory about this.

We are witnessing a terrible arms race all throughout society, so that a smaller and smaller number of people can have a larger and larger share of desirable things. We're fighting over who gets to extract value. Meanwhile, so much else is left to be undesirable. To be truly a bit shit. The largest firms are getting larger and larger, and you have to get into them if you want to get anywhere. Inequality between firms is way up. A handful of East India Companies is conquering all.

This "Tiger Mom" phenomenon is just the prisoner's best-response to the situation.

The solution has to be a more broad-based cultural and material plenty. We have to have enough to go around, and we have to have nice things. People wouldn't be gouging each others' eyes out if they didn't think their peers were just competitors for scarce resources.