I believe his point is that although it is useful to analyze someone to see what they're doing wrong (so that you don't repeat the same mistake), it would be more useful to study what they are doing right so that you can apply those lessons to your situation. The former is quite easy to do and runs the risk of lulling one into complacency and a false sense of security, while the latter exercises your brain and demands greater effort and a more impartial assessment of the situation.
In the grandparent commenter's case, he is saying that everyone is focusing on the negatives of Chinese research when there are some useful lessons regarding regulation that could possibly be ported to the US.
The problem is you literally cannot trust anything positive that comes out of China. This isn't jingoism, western countries have their own issues, but China is a country set up only for rewarding positive results and severely punishing negative or even neutral results. Having worked from China in numerous jobs, a good chunk of the useful information they have is a liability as it's most likely stolen from elsewhere. To be clear this has absolutely nothing to do with the individual person, but with the risk/reward structure that exists in mainland China.
http://www.aaronkharris.com/presumption-of-stupitidy https://sivers.org/ss
In the grandparent commenter's case, he is saying that everyone is focusing on the negatives of Chinese research when there are some useful lessons regarding regulation that could possibly be ported to the US.