Yanwen’s blog

7/17/2026

Yesterday a friend shared an interesting Pew Research Center report with me titled "People in Many Countries Now View China More Positively Than the U.S."

The Pew report compares favorability toward the U.S. and China in 36 countries. It finds that, China is viewed more positively than the U.S. in most of those countries. 

This is a big deal because it marks the first time in more than two decades of Pew's global polling that China has enjoyed a measurable advantage over the United States in overall favorability.

Interestingly, the six countries where the U.S. retains a favorable image all have close military relationship with the U.S. -- Poland, Japan, South Korea, India, the Philippines, and Israel. Whether those military ties influence public opinion is an intriguing question worthy of further study.

This naturally raises another question: How much of international public opinion is shaped by a country's security dependence The survey itself doesn't answer that question. It identifies a pattern, but explaining the causes requires additional evidence.

The Gallup report measures approval of national leadership, not overall favorability. It reports that in 2025 the median approval of China's leadership was 36%, compared with 31% for U.S. leadership—the widest lead China has held in Gallup's nearly two decades of tracking.

Regardless of the causes, these findings have practical implications. That is, International public opinion influences a country's attractiveness to international students, skilled workers, tourists, investors, and international partners.

If public opinion is indeed shifting, what is driving the change? Is it security, economics, diplomacy, culture, media narratives, or dissatisfaction? The Pew and Gallup reports show that perceptions are changing. Understanding why may be even more important than the rankings themselves.

7/16/2026

Recently I came across a discussion about a common workplace frustration: someone reads your message but never replies, "read-but-unreplied" messages (已读不回).

For example, you send your supervisor a message. The "Read" label appears almost immediately—but nothing else happens. Ten minutes pass. Then an hour. Still no response. You send a follow-up email. The next day comes, and still you hear nothing. Your emotions shift from calm, to anxious, to dejected. You begin to feel ignored, insignificant, even snubbed or belittled.

While this describes a workplace situation, it reminded me of a conversation I once had with my sister.

"Do your children usually reply to your messages right away?" she asked.

"Sometimes. Why?"

"My WeChat messages to my son often go unanswered for days," she said. "I'm sure he'd reply immediately if the message came from his girlfriend."

Unlike Telegram, iMessage, or many workplace messaging platforms, WeChat doesn't display a "Read" indicator, so you never really know whether the recipient has seen your message.

"Maybe that's actually a sign that he feels secure in your love," I said. "He knows you won't stop loving him just because he doesn't reply immediately."

Of course, my sister wasn't convinced. I couldn't help thinking that perhaps her son takes her unconditional love for granted. He knows his mother's love won't change no matter how long he leaves her messages unanswered. I'm sure he is not consciously exploiting that fact.

I didn't say any of this to my sister. I'm still not sure what I could have said to comfort her. From what she said, perhaps the pain comes not from an unanswered message, but from wondering where you now rank in someone else's priorities.

Perhaps the real issue isn't the "Read" label at all. Technology merely makes silence more visible. What hurts isn't knowing that someone has read our message without a reply. It is wondering whether we still matter enough to deserve a reply.

In the workplace, that silence threatens our professional standing and relationships. Between parents and children, it touches something even deeper. A child may delay replying because he never doubts his mother's love. The tragedy is that those who love us the most are often the ones we unintentionally neglect.

A reader comments, “这是微信（腾讯）的老板马化腾故意设计的，微信团队讨论了很长时间，最后马化腾拍板决定。马化腾是个理工男，不善于社交，他说让收到信息的人回复，或者显示状态（信息是否已经阅读），会给人压力”

Reader’s comment, “我给外甥发知识性的，英语的，做饭的，中国文化的，基本都不回[Scream][Scream][Scream]”

One reader commented, “ Life!  When our children have a significant other in their life, we get shifted to a not so important role. We no longer are their focus or priority. Therefore, they often stay quiet. However, if they need something from the parents, they won’t hesitate to call or text. That’s because they know you will be there for them!  Tell your sister to relax. This happens to more families than we think.”

Another commented, “A good question to ponder. This is a common phenomenon in any relationships nowadays. It’s a matter of priority as well as a sense of reciprocity. (My child) replies my messages but seldom replies immediately and I do not expect her to do so. Among friends, I do not expect a reply neither. It’s up to the receiver’s decision that is beyond my control. Unfortunately, more relationships stagnate or cause anxiety because of these “no replies,” a side effect of social media.[Grimace].”

7/15/2026

On July 13, 2026, Harici published an article reporting on an EY-Parthenon study of the costs of reducing Western dependence on China across strategic supply chains.

The study, originally reported by the Financial Times, estimates that reducing reliance on China could cost the United States, the eurozone, and the United Kingdom more than $23 trillion over the next quarter century.

Upon reading it, three questions came to my mind.

The first question is: Is it technically possible?

Almost certainly yes. There is no economic law that says manufacturing ecosystems cannot be built elsewhere.

The second question is: Is it economically expensive?

Again, yes, very much so. The study's estimate of $23.6 trillion illustrates just how costly such a transformation could be. Building factories is only part of the challenge. Entire industrial ecosystems—including suppliers, logistics, infrastructure, skilled workers, and refining capacity—take decades and more to develop.

The third question is: Is there sufficient political will?

That's a trillion dollar question. Democracies tend to struggle with long time horizons. The costs are immediate and visible—higher public spending, higher prices, and difficult budget choices—while the benefits, such as economic independence, may not become apparent for years or even decades.

History offers many examples in which what once seemed impossible became possible through sustained political will and collective efforts. One example is modern China. 

Before 1949, China was burdened by the "Three Mountains"—imperialism, feudalism, and bureaucratic capitalism. Overcoming these forces appeared an overwhelming task at the time. Yet history shows that objectives once considered unattainable can become achievable when there is sufficient determination, organization, and persistence.

Very often, the limiting factor is not capability but determination. Individuals, organizations, and nations frequently possess the resources and knowledge to achieve difficult goals. 

Like the book review that I did a few days ago on Why Was the PLA Able to Win? by Xu Yan. It's the same question asked again and again, why do some people and institutions successfully pursue long-term goals while others do not?

What ultimately determines success is whether they have the vision, the determination, the discipline, and the political will to sustain the effort over many years and decades.

A reader commented, “ 还有一个因素，现在的西方政客更像职业经理人，而不是政治家，很难制定超过任期的蓝图，更难保证不人走茶凉。” Make sense.

7/14/2026

A few weeks ago I read some research about the functions of human hippocampus. I made a note of the research and wanted to come back to this, because one of my college classmates lost about 90% of the volume of her hippocampus due to some unknown reason. This research suggests that the hippocampus plays a much broader role than neuroscientists once believed.

Neuroscientists have discovered that the hippocampus is involved not only in forming memories but also in imagining the future. Whether we plan tomorrow's activities, picture how an event might unfold, or visualize a place we have never seen, many of these mental simulations depend on the hippocampus. In other words, remembering the past and imagining the future rely on many of the same neural machinery.

Modern neuroscience increasingly suggests that the hippocampus is a simulation engine—a brain system that uses the past to construct possible futures.

From an evolutionary perspective, this makes perfect sense. Remembering the past is valuable because it helps us anticipate the future. Animals that can predict danger, locate food, or choose better actions are more likely to survive and reproduce.

Memory evolved not to preserve yesterday, but to prepare for tomorrow.

A growing body of research suggests that regular physical exercise, mentally stimulating activities such as reading and language learning, music, and rich social engagement are all associated with better hippocampal health and a lower risk of cognitive decline.

Finally, writing serves another valuable purpose. By recording our experiences, we create an external memory that works better at preserving our memory, and with that years later, these memories allow us to revisit the past, reflect on it, and use it to imagine the future once again. 

Perhaps that is one reason human beings have always kept diaries, written memoirs, and told stories. Memory allows us to learn from yesterday; writing allows us to preserve those memories long after they begin to fade.

7/13/2026

A few days ago a college classmate shared this with me, "University of Chicago Law to ban phones, laptops in classroom for first-year students in new AI plan."

I read the statement issued by the university. It is much more thoughtful than the news headlines suggest. The document focuses deeper questions than laptop or phone ban.

The university's AI strategy rests on three principles.

First, instead of banning AI or pretending it doesn't exist,  "our pedagogy and assessment should be designed to ensure our students learn how to think critically and solve legal problems with sound professional judgment."

AI can provide quick answers, but relying on those shortcuts too early may hinder intellectual development. As a result, classrooms, assignments, and assessments should be designed to promote genuine learning rather than dependence on AI.

Second, "AI may transform the legal profession, but many aspects of legal practice are likely to remain the domain of humans, not merely because humans are good at them, but because clients, employers, judges, and society will want humans to perform them."

Skills such as oral advocacy, strategic judgment, critical thinking, and building relationships with clients are likely to remain fundamentally human responsibilities. Legal education should therefore place renewed emphasis on developing these uniquely human capabilities. So they ask, "What are the essentially human skills that AI can't replace?"

Third, because AI will inevitably become part of legal practice, students must also learn how to use it effectively. However, the goal is not merely to master today's AI tools, which may soon become obsolete, but to develop the analytical thinking, adaptability, and ethical judgment needed to work with whatever technologies emerge in the future.

If one of America's top law schools believes that students must first learn to think before relying on AI, what does that imply for education more broadly?

In the age of AI, thinking becomes more valuable than knowing. Facts are now available almost instantly, but judgment, reasoning, creativity, and wisdom cannot simply be downloaded from a machine.

The human brain develops and maintains through active engagement. We learn by working with difficult problems, making mistakes, and thinking them through. If we rely on AI too early or too often, we risk outsourcing the very mental work that education is meant to develop. That concern applies not only to students but also to children, whose minds are still developing, and to older adults, who benefit from continued cognitive engagement to keep their brains sharp.

Finally, human behavior is shaped by the environments we create. Rather than simply telling students, "Don't overuse AI," the University of Chicago Law School is redesigning the learning environment so that students first develop the habit of independent thinking.