Firstly, let me explain that I don't mean this in a way that society keeps us unequal and it needs to be fixed. I mean this in a way that we are not all equal and that's the way it's supposed to be. We are individuals for a reason, because we are not the same as everybody else. This is what gives us uniqueness.
Some people are faster, some people are smarter, some are braver, richer, poorer, more competent, better in certain fields, and worse in others. This doesn't mean person A is better overall as a human being than person B just because they're more talented at some random skill.
However, it does mean they aren't the same and thus not equal in their ability. When there's a competition, everyone doesn't come in first place because someone is the winner of the competition. This can be applied to real life applications, and situations as well. To think we're all equal is a very dangerous thing.
The delusion of thinking equality exists, creates conformity, and we all become part of a group think. No one does anything different. No one has uniqueness. No one has individual identity. I'm not going to go into extreme detail how this ruins society just look around you.
Society isn't worse off when we understand that equality is a falsehood. It is worse off when we give the false pretense that equality is a real thing. The person that trains to be the fastest runner cannot be categorized in the same group as someone who is lazy and doesn't even like to go on walks, who is slow.
It is by that person's effort, determination, their dedication and devotion to their training, their exercise, practice, or growth that they are superior, not equal to that person who is lazy and slothful. (The runner example can be used for any example that it is applicable to. There doesn't have to be physicality involved.
We are all human but we are not all equal. Sometimes people are better. Sometimes people are worse. And that's perfectly fine.
Is there a particular declaration of equality that you're arguing against? I don't know that I encounter a lot of people who would disagree with your assertion that we're not equal in ability or traits. That likely seems obvious to a lot of people. When equality is spoken of, I usually find that it's addressed as an ideal relating to treatment and opportunity. Some people espouse that society should treat all people equally, in the idea that we all have the same human rights, that we all have the most commons needs, we're all born and die, etc. And treating each other equally is a generally straightforward way to navigate human relationships.
If you focus on the idea that we're all different as the basis for a value system rather than a factual observation that informs your perceptions, that might lead to some people arguing that being different in some ways means you're "better" as a person and should be treated better and have more rights or privileges or freedoms over other people.
If we're categorizing people based on their top speed, yes, an Olympic athlete is likely "better" in that category than an obese guy who doesn't get much or any exercise. But that category may not be relevant to many people outside of sports and athletic competitions and being better in that category doesn't make you a better person in general. A fast runner could also beat their spouse or murder people or kick puppies or just generally be a sociopath. And an obese person who doesn't get much exercise could be a volunteer worker at a children's cancer ward. So "better" in some categories doesn't mean "better" over all or in categories that others might value.
Have you read Harrison Bergeron by Kurt Vonnegut? It's a dystopian short story about a future in which the government attempts to make everyone equal by handicapping people with above average abilities. There's also a decent movie adaptation called 2081.
https://www.tnellen.com/cybereng/harrison.html
https://www.teaching2081.org/
It's a good story, but it's arguing against something that as a society, we don't seem even close to being in danger of. We have large swaths of the population who don't want people to be equal or perceived as equal and they're actively pursuing policies that treat people inequally, especially in regard to civil and human rights.
I explained in my post some of what you said, I haven't read the thing you sent and yes you being better at math will make you favored for the accounting job. So the uneducated or inefficient person will be treated unequally. That is fine and needed.
This isn't always the way it shakes out because there are more factors than skill or merit that determine who has what position. You might be better at math, but you're also better at cooking, so you get a job as a chef and someone who is worse at math is your accountant, but since it's their job, they know the accounting laws that apply to your business better.
There isn't some grand artificial intelligence with a universal database that has categorized all people and their skillsets such that we could easily identify who is better than anyone else at something and equitably apportion those people to those positions and doing so would violate individual freedoms.
What if you're better at math, but you find being an accountant sucks and you become an artist instead? Should you be treated worse just because you didn't choose to be an accountant?
Many determinations of "better" will be highly subjective, so it'll just come down to what the people currently in charge think is of value, and that's a recipe for unethical discrimination. Sure, we can determine who can run faster, but there's not an easy measurement for who is a more deserving person if there are limited resources to apportion.
True but I'm not trying to figure out who's better. I'm letting it be known that we aren't all equal. You came with the hypotheticals and "what ifs"
People already know that people aren't equal in skills or talents or abilities. You're not really saying anything new there. But you are saying that people should be treated inequally by virtue of undefined criteria, and that necessarily requires someone to make a judgment call as to what is valuable and what is not. You're not following your assertions through to their logical conclusions. Hypotheticals are useful for evaluating proposals to see if the proposals are practical or humane or achievable. If you aren't sure how your proposal would play out, you're admitting you haven't thought it through enough. There isn't much value in a raw concept with no feasibility.