Someone in my group asked me: Morris, what do you think about mathematic talents such as Wang Hong and Deng Yu getting international recognition, as well as the development of AI companies like Kimi? Structurally speaking, it’s the outcomes of two different talent growth systems.

First, the China model:
social goals + unified direction + concentrated resources + selection mechanisms + high-intensity competition → a small number of top-tier talents → and finally, proof that the institutional system works.
This model is a bit like the “Olympic sports model” applied in the intellectual realm. By setting clear goals, concentrating resources, and filtering through multiple layers, it pushes the most outstanding segment of people toward the world’s frontiers. So it’s especially good at cultivating talents who need long-term accumulation, technical training, and strong execution—such as in mathematics, engineering, manufacturing, AI, and other fields. But its core logic is: cultivate champions. Not: give everyone the greatest possible space for exploration.
Next, the US model:
individual freedom of choice + diverse environments + market competition + capital support + tolerance for failure → lots of experiments → a few breakthroughs.
This model doesn’t pre-judge who will succeed; instead, it lets more people search for their place in different fields. Some go into science, some start businesses, some study technologies, and some create new business models. A large number of failures are to trade for the few breakthroughs that change the world. Its core logic is: create more possibilities.
So the difference between the two is this: one is that the system filters out excellent people. The other is that the environment creates new possibilities. China can cultivate world-class talent, which proves the effectiveness of the system. But a society’s true innovation capacity depends not only on whether it can produce a few champions—it also depends on whether it can help more different people find their own positions.
A lot of parents’ questions are also like this—they understand growth as a single, unique track: enter the selection system and become the chosen one. But the real world needs people in different roles. Some become scientists, some become entrepreneurs, some become technical experts, and some create new fields—some can even become a happy person. What truly matters isn’t becoming someone else’s defined #1, but finding your own position and continuously creating value.