I have seen two scholars who quoted Max Weber to emphasize the importance of not imposing their own values on students. However, both of them had strong personalities and ended up pushing their own values onto their students.

I sometimes doubt whether The Art of War by Sun Tzu is really worth reading. It feels like it might be a bit overrated.

Why don't young researchers try to build big, broad theories anymore?
Is it because all the important ideas have already been discussed?
Is it because the academic world does not value such work?
Or is it because making big claims feels embarrassing?

I submit that the single most important book of social science in modern history is Karl Polanyi's The Great Transformation. Want to know what the hell is happening in the 2020s? Read Polanyi on the 1920s.

Strict methodology leads to siloization;
Loose methodology leads to poetry.

Free trade brings broad but shallow benefits, while the damage is narrow but deep. As a result, the voices of those harmed are louder, making protectionism politically rational.

Although concepts like balancing, polarity, and the offense-defense balance all have serious problems, they are still very useful for organizing our thinking.

Most academic debates are, at their core, disagreements over metatheory. Scholars should be self-aware of their own metatheoretical assumptions.

The idea that "a hegemon is status-quo" and "a rising power is revisionist" is a biased assumption in IR theory.

A theory should be a spark for thought, not a mirror of truth. Because of underdetermination, its value lies not in being right, but in raising questions and sparking debate.

In world politics, strong countries are like breeders. They help some countries grow and survive, and leave others to struggle. For example, Western countries give a lot of support to Ukraine, but much less to Palestine.