Yanwen’s blog

7/8/2026

Yesterday, while having lunch, I was listening to the Odyssey story. After that, I was wondering the epic story was written over 2000 years ago, what is it that makes it still popular today?

For a brief summary, The Odyssey, attributed to the Greek poet Homer, begins after the Trojan War. Odysseus, king of Ithaca, spends ten years struggling to return home after offending Poseidon, the god of the sea. Along the way, he encounters mythical dangers—the Cyclops, the enchantress Circe, the Sirens, and many others. 

Meanwhile, back in Ithaca, his wife Penelope faithfully waits for him while fending off suitors who have taken over his household, and his son Telemachus searches for news of his missing father. At last, with the help of the goddess Athena, Odysseus returns in disguise, defeats the suitors, reunites with his family, and finally comes home after twenty years away.

For all his heroic deeds, after victory and glory, what Odysseus longed for most was simply returning home -- the place where he belonged.

More than 2,700 years have passed since Homer told Odysseus's story, yet its emotional appeal hasn't changed. Today we may travel farther than ever before, build successful careers, or seek adventure in distant lands. But somewhere deep inside us remains the same longing—to return to the place, and the people, where we belong.

As I wrote those words, I found myself thinking again about the Korean clinician who visited us on July 1. She had left her home and family behind to build a new life in America. Living here alone, thousands of miles from her parents in Korea, she spoke with a sadness that many first-generation immigrants would recognize.

I also thought of a friend here in America. His daughter will start college this fall. This summer, he took her back to China to visit relatives and reconnect with family roots. In a way, it was his own version of a homecoming—not because he was returning permanently, but because he wanted his daughter to know where she came from.

Odysseus spends ten years trying to get home after the war. Many immigrants spend decades trying to reconcile two homes—the one they left behind and the one they have built. 

Finally, east or west, home is best. Home is the symbol of belonging. That's why it resonated with the Korean clinician and why The Odyssey has never grown old after nearly three millennia. The story endures because, despite all the changes in civilization, that human longing has remained unchanged.

7/7/2026

This question came to mind as I was reading  Why Was the PLA Able to Win? by Xu Yan. PLA stands for People’s Liberation Army in China.

First of all, regardless of one's political views, this is a legitimate historical question. More than this, it is one of the central questions of modern Chinese history.

In the late 1940s, the Nationalists appeared to hold almost every advantage. They controlled most major cities, possessed a larger and better-equipped army, enjoyed international recognition, and received substantial American military aid. Many foreign observers expected them to prevail.

Yet within only a few years, the Communists won decisively. That definitely demands an explanation.

Second, Xu Yan's explanation overlaps considerably with what many historians identify as important factors: land reform, discipline, organizational cohesion, political education, and strategic flexibility.

One example of the strategic flexibility is the famous 16-character guerrilla strategy: 敌进我退，敌驻我扰，敌疲我打，敌退我追。When the enemy advances, we retreat. When the enemy camps (or halts), we harass him. When the enemy is exhausted, we attack. When the enemy retreats, we pursue.

This captures the essence of asymmetric warfare. Rather than confronting a stronger opponent head-on, the weaker force chooses when, where, and under what conditions to fight.

Ultimately, XU makes us think this way: instead of treating victory as inevitable, he asks: what makes one organization PLA consistently outperform another even under extraordinarily difficult circumstances?

That question applies far beyond military history. A businesses or sports team, or government or school or a company even families ask the same question.

There are at least two lessons that I learned from the book.

The first is organization and motivation.

An army faces many of the same management challenges as any organization: recruiting people, retaining them, motivating them, developing leaders, maintaining discipline, and building a shared culture.

The second lesson is resource leverage.

There is a Chinese saying, 花少钱办大事—accomplishing big things with limited resources. The PLA achieved victory despite beginning with fewer material resources than the Nationalists.

The lesson extends far beyond military history. Many successful organizations did not begin with abundant resources; they learned to deploy limited resources more effectively than their competitors.

Resources matter, but how you organize and deploy them often matters just as much.

This book connects naturally with several others I've been reading recently.

Thucydides explored why Greek city-states rise and fall during the Peloponnesian War. The Draghi Report asks why Europe is losing competitiveness. Xu Yan examines how the PLA grew from a small revolutionary force into the army that ultimately won the Chinese Civil War.

Each addresses a different historical setting, yet all wrestle with the same enduring question:

Why do some organizations, states, institutions, and societies succeed while others fail?

Their answers differ, but they repeatedly point to the importance of leadership, organization, incentives, adaptability, and the ability to execute under difficult circumstances.

7/6/2026

Yesterday I read an interesting section of the Draghi Report on European competitiveness. The report examines why Europe has been losing ground economically relative to the United States and China.

Its diagnosis is broader than simply blaming bureaucracy, though it's one of the key issues. Europe's competitiveness challenge has multiple causes, one of which is slow and fragmented governance.

Draghi identifies several structural problems that reinforce one another:

• Fragmented markets Europe is still not a fully integrated single market in areas such as capital, digital services, and energy.

• Insufficient investment Europe invests less than is needed in innovation, infrastructure, and strategic industries.

• An innovation gap Europe produces world-class research but often struggles to turn it into globally competitive companies.

• High energy costs Since the energy crisis, European industry has faced significantly higher costs than many of its competitors.

• Regulatory complexity and slow implementation Even when Europe reaches broad agreement on a problem, turning that agreement into concrete action can take years.

To me, the report highlights a familiar pattern: Europe has become very good at diagnosing problems but less effective at implementing solutions.

It reminds me of a saying I heard years ago:

Ideas are cheap. Execution is everything.

A similar thought is often attributed to Peter Drucker:

"Plans are only good intentions unless they immediately degenerate into hard work."

This pattern extends well beyond Europe. Whether we look at the Greek city-states after the Peloponnesian War, the later Roman Empire, imperial China, modern governments, or even large corporations, a recurring lesson emerges: institutions rarely struggle because they fail to recognize problems. More often, they struggle because they become too slow, too divided, or too constrained or too big to respond effectively.

The question the Draghi Report ultimately raises is a timeless one:

Can institutions adapt as quickly as the world around them changes?

In an age of AI, rapid technological change, and intense global competition, that may be one of the defining questions for every government, organization, and company.

History repeatedly suggests that civilizations and institutions decline because they cannot respond to problems quickly.

7/5/2026 

Yesterday I read an interesting paper: "Distinct Effects of Long-Term Resistance Exercise on Cognitive Deficits, Neurotrophins, and Amyloid Pathology in Male and Female APP/PS1 Mice."

What the researchers wanted to know

Most studies on exercise and brain health have focused on aerobic exercise—walking, jogging, cycling, and swimming.

This study asked a different question:

Can long-term resistance training (strength training) also help protect the brain against Alzheimer's disease?

The researchers were also interested in whether males and females respond differently.

What they did

The study used a well-established mouse model of Alzheimer's disease. These mice develop amyloid-beta (Aβ) plaques, memory problems, and cognitive decline similar to some features of human Alzheimer's disease.

Both male and female mice completed a four-month resistance training program. Their "weight lifting" consisted of climbing a ladder while carrying progressively heavier weights attached to their tails—a standard method for studying resistance exercise in mice.

The researchers then evaluated learning, memory, activity level, brain growth factors, and amyloid plaques.

What they found

The results differed between male and female mice.

Female mice showed:

• Improved short-term memory

• Reduced hyperactivity

• Increased VEGF (vascular endothelial growth factor)

• Reduced amyloid-beta levels

• Reduced amyloid plaque burden

In other words, female mice showed less Alzheimer's pathology.

Male mice showed:

• Improved learning and long-term memory

• Increased BDNF (brain-derived neurotrophic factor)

• Increased IGF-1

• Reduced hyperactivity

Interestingly, although male mice showed clear cognitive improvement, their amyloid plaques did not decrease significantly.

Why these findings make sense

The results are biologically plausible.

For years, neuroscientists have known that exercise increases important growth factors such as BDNF, IGF-1, and VEGF. These molecules support neuron survival, promote new neural connections, improve blood supply, and enhance the brain's ability to learn and adapt.

Resistance exercise also reduces inflammation and improves insulin sensitivity—both of which are increasingly recognized as important factors in Alzheimer's disease.

Perhaps the most intriguing finding was that males and females appeared to benefit through different biological pathways. Female mice showed greater reductions in amyloid pathology, while male mice appeared to benefit primarily through increased neurotrophic support. This fits a growing body of evidence suggesting that Alzheimer's disease does not develop in exactly the same way in men and women, likely because of differences in hormones, metabolism, immune responses, and vascular biology.

If confirmed in humans, this could eventually lead to more personalized approaches to prevention and treatment.

An important limitation

This was a mouse study, not a human study.

Many Alzheimer's treatments that produced impressive results in mice have ultimately failed in clinical trials. Mouse brains are much simpler than human brains, so these findings should be viewed as promising rather than conclusive.

In addition, Alzheimer's disease involves far more than amyloid plaques. Modern research recognizes that tau protein, inflammation, vascular disease, metabolism, genetics, and other factors all interact in complex ways. Simply reducing amyloid has not consistently translated into meaningful cognitive improvement in humans.

My takeaway

Although this single study cannot tell us what resistance training does in people, it fits well with a much larger body of research.

Over the past two decades, regular exercise has consistently been associated with lower dementia risk, larger hippocampal volume, better executive function, healthier blood vessels, improved glucose regulation, and better overall brain health.

It also complements other research on healthy cognitive aging, including studies on music, lifelong learning, reading, social engagement, good sleep, hearing preservation, and blood pressure control.

Rather than looking for one "magic bullet" against dementia, the evidence increasingly points toward a lifestyle portfolio. Music, reading, writing, learning new skills, aerobic exercise, resistance training, and meaningful social interaction may each protect the brain through different mechanisms. Together, these healthy habits may have additive effects over a lifetime.

Finally, keep in mind that, a healthy brain is not built by any one single habit. It is cultivated over decades through physical, intellectual, and social engagement.

7/4/2026

I came across an interesting study today:

"What Is the Association Between Music-Related Leisure Activities and Dementia Risk? A Cohort Study"(2025)

The researchers followed 10,893 Australians aged 70 or older who did not have dementia at the start of the study. They examined three types of music-related activities:

• Listening to music

• Playing a musical instrument

• Doing both

What they found

Compared with people who listened to music rarely or never, those who reported always listening to music had:

• 39% lower risk of dementia

• 17% lower risk of cognitive impairment without dementia (CIND)

People who often played a musical instrument had about a 35% lower risk of dementia. Those who both listened and played also showed lower risks.

Frequent music listeners also maintained better memory and overall cognitive function over time.

The study concluded:

"These results highlight music as a promising and accessible strategy to help reduce cognitive impairment and delay the onset of dementia in later life."

An important caution

This was an observational study, meaning it found an association, not proof of cause and effect. We still don't know whether music itself reduces dementia risk, or whether people with healthier brains are simply more likely to engage in music throughout life.

Where music might help

Although the exact mechanism remains uncertain, several explanations are biologically plausible.

Listening to—and especially performing—music engages multiple brain systems at the same time, including hearing, memory, attention, emotion, movement, and fine motor coordination. This widespread activation may help build what neuroscientists call cognitive reserve: the brain's ability to compensate for age-related changes.

Music is also associated with reduced stress, improved mood, increased body movement, and the stimulation of autobiographical memories—all factors linked to healthier brain aging.

My takeaway

Over the years, I have written about the benefits of learning foreign languages, reading, and cultivating intellectual humility through lifelong learning. These activities share something important with music: they all keep the brain actively engaged.

Increasingly, research suggests that no single activity prevents dementia on its own. Rather, healthy brain aging appears to result from a combination of mentally stimulating, physically active, and socially engaging habits. Music fits naturally into that broader picture.

One of its greatest advantages is this. Almost anyone can begin listening to music today, regardless of age. It is enjoyable, inexpensive, and carries virtually no downside.

Finally, our brains, much like our bodies, thrive when they continue to be challenged. Whether through music, reading, learning a new language, or meaningful conversation, keeping the mind engaged may be one of the best investment we can make for the years ahead.