Personal Reflections During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Note: This post was originally written on March 27, 2020 and published on Sina Weibo. It is being republished here because the original platform is no longer accessible.

Reflections on Reading

During the Spring Festival, I read four books in total, all in a relatively intensive manner: Principles by Ray Dalio, and Attitude, Insight, and Vision by Wu Jun. While reading, I also compiled a list of additional books to explore gradually.

First, some thoughts about reading itself. Reading speed is heavily influenced by the author’s writing style, whether the book is originally written in Chinese, and the quality of translation. Comprehension speed depends not only on these factors but also on layout and structure. Not every book is a good book. Some books are inefficient—not because they lack information, but because they fail to communicate clearly. Reading them is laborious, and although there may be gains, the efficiency is low.

Among the four, Principles took me over a week. The content was valuable, but the translation was poor and the structure often confusing, forcing repeated reading. In contrast, Wu Jun’s books were much smoother. I finished Insight in about two days, and Attitude, written as letters, became a bedside read. Previously, I had no concrete sense of how to evaluate a book’s quality. Now, I have begun forming my own benchmark.

I used to subconsciously associate reading with performative behavior—more about appearance than real learning—because information today is abundant and rapidly accessible. It was hard to convince myself that sitting quietly and reading was not just a display. This experience changed that view, mainly for two reasons.

1. Quantity of information does not determine quality of understanding

Online content is optimized for speed and traffic. Long-form reading is discouraged, often diluted with emojis or unrelated images. Explaining something thoroughly takes space. Books may use hundreds of pages to convey a few core ideas, but that does not make them redundant.

Books provide structured logic, detailed explanation, and grounded examples. Compared to fragmented online content, their information transmission is significantly more effective. Quick reading often prevents deeper causal analysis, leading to flawed conclusions.

For example, correlation does not imply causation. German beer has long been considered high quality. Historically, people observed that beer brewed by women tasted better and concluded that gender determined quality. Only later did they identify yeast—carried during cooking—as the actual cause. Gender and taste were correlated, but yeast was the missing causal factor.

Reading, through sustained focus, creates space for reflection, allowing deeper processing and filtering of information.

2. Reading creates space for self-examination

Socrates said that an unexamined life is not worth living. Self-examination requires time and mental space. Modern information channels provide content but reduce the opportunity for reflection.

Reading slows the pace. Sitting with a book and a cup of tea allows revisiting past experiences, separating them from emotional distortion, and confronting oneself more objectively. During this period, I reviewed past failures, organized insights, and even revisited old recordings, noticing flaws in tone and expression that I had previously overlooked.

Such introspection is not achievable through fragmented information consumption.

These are my reflections on reading itself. As for specific takeaways from each book, I prefer discussion over one-way summary. I have developed a habit of writing notes for each book, which can be shared anytime.

Thoughts on Personal Development

Before this year, I lacked a coherent framework to explain my own career decisions. I understood general principles but still experienced confusion, imbalance, and self-doubt. Abstract ideas often felt misaligned when applied to my own situation.

I reached a conclusion: instead of forcing oneself to fit existing principles, it is better to derive principles that fit oneself.

Based on this, I organized my thinking into five parts.

1. The answer I was searching for

Since graduating in 2011, I have changed jobs frequently compared to peers. I never considered this problematic. I could justify each move: leaving with integrity and reaching a plateau in the current role.

But justification alone felt insufficient. It resembled post-hoc rationalization rather than deliberate planning. I kept asking: what is the real driver behind these decisions?

After long reflection, the answer became clear:
I want to work with people who are more capable than I am.

This aligns with a classical idea from Xunzi: individuals are not inherently different, but they excel by leveraging external resources. My interpretation is that “external resources” often mean better people.

Looking back, every transition involved encountering someone whose presence made the future seem more promising. That person represented “a higher standard.”

2. Internal conflict

Initially, I often viewed others as significantly more capable. Over time, as I improved, the gap narrowed. Those once perceived as “far superior” became simply “strong.”

The key insight: “more capable” is always relative. As one improves, the reference point shifts.

At the same time, I often observed peers with higher income or more comfortable lifestyles. This created internal tension—believing myself capable yet feeling behind.

Attempts at investment and alternative income paths failed. But working with more capable individuals gradually clarified my direction. Exposure to their thinking reshaped my own perspective.

Some problems cannot be solved at the same level they arise. A higher vantage point is required.

This realization replaced confusion with clarity. There are no shortcuts to sudden success.

3. The internal debate

Does working with more capable people mean compromising oneself? I believe not.

I lack the disposition for superficial social adaptation. Forced interactions feel inauthentic. However, when engaging with genuinely capable individuals, even under pressure, I find the experience acceptable and even motivating.

This suggests that discomfort is not universal—it depends on the perceived value of the interaction.

4. Necessary conditions

Being around capable people requires being recognized by them.

Success involves factors like mentorship, opportunity, effort, and adversity. Among these, effort is fundamental. Without personal value, opportunities remain inaccessible.

In earlier reflections, I outlined three stages of career development before age 30:

1. Foundational traits: motivation, responsibility, curiosity, diligence

2. Independent problem-solving capability

3. Leadership and system-level thinking

Wu Jun’s framework extends this into broader categories, but the principle remains consistent: capability must match context.

Continuous self-improvement increases the probability of being accepted into higher-level environments.

5. Profession vs. job

The distinction between profession and job is critical.

A profession defines the domain; a job is a specific role within it. Understanding this distinction allows better decision-making:

• Prioritize activities aligned with long-term professional development

• Avoid choices driven solely by short-term gain

This provides a practical framework for navigating career decisions.

Closing Thoughts

Over the past month, these reflections gradually formed. Fully expanding them would require far more detail.

The objective here is not completeness, but clarity: to organize past experiences into a coherent framework and articulate them in a way that is understandable and applicable.

Further discussion can be built upon specific situations as they arise.