Emerald

You can use either Final Cut Pro X or Adobe Premier. These are the most popular of the two. Final cut costs $300, all in one go. Adobe Premier costs $50 per month on an ongoing basis. So, I chose FCP because Adobe gets really expensive and you have to continue paying on it. Also, if you want to get a lot of views, you'll want to focus on thumbnails, titles, tags, description, and transcription. Be sure that all of these are optimized for the terms most commonly searched for the topic that you're covering. This will help your channel, as a new channel, be able to get ranked in YT and Google search as well as potentially get recommended to others who are searching for similar things. This is probably the most important advice for a new YouTuber looking to grow, other than to make high quality videos and to have a clear brand that is professional looking and recognizable.

Wrong. I could be repulsed by a really attractive guy, and really into a guy who's average. It really depends on the character of the guy and the presence of chemistry (which is always a toss-up). Also, generally speaking, women like to date men who are their looks-match or even slightly lower. I would feel strange dating a super-model-looking guy because I am an average looking woman, because I know that my looks would not impress him. But if I'm with an average guy who is maybe a point below me on the attractiveness scale, he would probably be really excited about my looks. Basically, women generally like to be the peacocks of the relationship. So, dating a really attractive guy, leaves little opportunity for that to happen for a woman who is more average. But if a guy is average, then it is easier to be the peacock. Now, looks do matter somewhat. It's the first firewall that women have. And it stands out right away in an obvious way. So, looks can be a deal-breaker if a guy is significantly less attractive than the woman in question. So, if I'm a 6, I'll never be interested in guys who are below a 4, no matter what. But a 5 might be attracted to a 4, and a 3 wouldn't necessarily want to date a 4 because a 4 is too attractive for her to feel like the peacock. So, this is how women mostly size a man up looks-wise. Men try to go for the most attractive woman he can get. But women don't work that way with men. Women try to go for a guy who is her looks-match... or date an older man who was maybe a point or two above her when he was her age, but is now her looks-match due to aging. But looks are just the first fire-wall, and are really not as interesting as the deeper parts of attraction that are infinitely more intuitive and intriguing. It's really all about the chemistry, which doesn't really correlate with looks at all. When I like a guy and have chemistry with him, I like the way he looks better than literally everyone else on the planet, even if he's a solid 5. And this is just because he takes on a magic quality that no one else has that can't be replicated. And when I do get attracted to a guy, I will feel a completely unique emotion related specifically to him that I'll never get with anyone else in the exact same way. So, there is a huge investment upfront before the relationship even starts (if it starts at all). So, I'll like the shape of his head that others may find strange, or that he's got a birthmark on his cheek, or that his arms are really long or some random thing like that because those qualities belong to him. And even if no one else sees him this way, I will think he's more attractive than Brad Pitt or any other Hollywood heartthrob. And only because he is him and is the only one who makes me feel that way.

I'm not trying to get you to prove anything to me. And I'm not refusing to take 5-MEO or something like that. I just won't seek it out because I won't take legal risks since I have children, and for this juncture in my life it would be unwise to do anything where there is a risk of my getting caught and spending huge chunks of their childhood in prison. I know this is highly unlikely, but I'm not about to take any kind of risk. Also, I don't think that you're making anything up. I believe you 100% that this is what you've experienced. I don't have any doubts in my mind as to that matter. I'm just asking you if it could be possible that, even a person who's had many experiences with God (and even a person who is enlightened), could 1. still be living in a delusion, but an alternate delusion that feels like absolute Truth, and 2. Once they're out of the experience and crystalize it into a memory and belief, could be deluded in this way. So, I'm not saying anything about you personally, and I'm not saying that what you're saying is definitely untrue. Instead, I'm asking for my own contemplation purposes, as I have had two direct experiences of God in the past and saw the Truth from a state of completely uninterested in spirituality. So, I know that the experience is phenomenologically real and can be experienced as I was not clouded by wishful thinking or confirmation bias. But also, since I am not directly experiencing that, could I (if I think about the limits of what I know) potentially be remembering a past that never happened as perhaps there is only now? And even in the experience, as true and clear as it felt, could I have potentially been interacting with a secondary delusion despite how true it felt? I'm asking you because you seem very sure and like you know. But my impression is that no matter how much we feel like we know, we'll be forever innocent in terms of actually knowing. But again, I know my limitations here. I am not able to experience Truth, God, or oneness right now. So, to me, it seems like none of this can ever truly be known or even known as absolute. Seemingly, it can just be experienced and taken for what it is. TLDR: Is true gnosticism possible, or will there always just be agnosticism even if we experience what feels in an absolute way like gnosis?

Listen, I understand my limitations here. I am still very much ego identified. But my impression was that you are too, but have had many glimpses through psychedelics. So, given that what you talk about is not rooted in the present but always in reference to past experiences (correct me if I'm wrong), how can you know right now as you are identified with Leo-ness? How can you know 100% for sure that the mind is not deluding you by creating an interpretation of your past experiences that is comprehensible to the mind and others who read it? And how could you know any of the past actually happened at all? And could God not create a secondary delusion, that to you feels 100% like absolute truth but would just be another delusion? And could that secondary delusion be what you're describing right now? Now, I'm not saying it's not true. But I'm asking, do you have 100% certainty that what you're saying is absolutely true... or could it just seem true in your experience? I just feel like pinning anything down in the realm of thoughts will always be a concession, and may be totally delusion at every step. So, it is not so much about doubt but a surrendering of the mind and admit that it cannot know anything for sure. And a total embrace of the mystery of what is and our own perpetual state of innocence that never dies.

I am talking from the perspective of someone who has had two experiences of ego transcendence, where I experienced oneness and recognized God was the nature of everything. But I also currently am ego identified. So, recognize that my belief in the ultimate truth of that experience is still just a belief based in a memory which is also a thought. So, I don't know for sure. So, I am aware that I'm believing in non-duality like a person believes in atheism because it is not my present moment experience and I recognize that I cannot truly know anything for sure. So, this is why I pressed Leo on the matter. How could he possibly know if there are multiple realities or just one reality if it's a belief of his based in memory? How could he possibly know that there are no other experiences when nothing can be seen beyond his immediate experience? How could he possibly be sure that his mind's interpretation of his experiences which are then crystalized into beliefs are correct? An insight that I had gotten was that to truly be open to Truth, a person falls into a trap to take any belief for granted. And since innocence was one of the core aspects of experiencing oneness for me, my intuition is that all belief in the absolute nature of reality should be set aside and not taken for granted. And this is true with anything that the mind interprets and crystalizes into an idea or belief, even relative to experiences of oneness. It seems wisest, that the mystery should be embraced that we may not be able to know even if it seems that we do. So, any absolute interpretation of reality I eye suspiciously (including my own)... especially if it's comprehensible to the human mind.

Is it possible to actually know that there are no other realities for sure? It sounds like a big assumption that I don't think anyone could reliably know with the mind. Correct me here if I am wrong. As it seems, we are forever in a huge blindspot in terms of knowing and understanding. So, we can not know if there is one, zero, many, or infinite realities. Even in the experience of oneness, there is still no certainty that the mind can grasp. So, it's wisest to embrace your inherent innocence to the workings of reality, and not fall on either side of the horse. The mind must surrender all illusions of knowing and simply embrace being to let go of the delusions of the mind. In my view, your certainty in knowing that there is no "other" and that there's only one reality, feels like the mind feels certain in a way that it never can be. Now, I have experienced oneness myself. But I'm still only limited to this one experience. So, it doesn't necessarily mean that there is only one experience. Now, I generally believe in oneness and that within the oneness is a many-ness, as this is what it seemed like. But to claim a knowing or understanding feels like a truth crystalized into a delusion.

@MsNobody @now is forever I personally don't recommend trying cold approach in the way that men do it. You'll get a ton of yeses, but most of them will be lukewarm and there won't be any romance. And it can also be dangerous since you don't know what a random guy is about. What I recommend is being selectively and subtly flirtatious with men that you already know and are attracted to. So, you can go out of your way to talk to him a few times a week, if he works with you or goes to school with you. You can laugh at his jokes and initiate brief platonic touch... like touching him on the shoulder. Or, if you have something that requires physical strength or height that you do not posses, you can ask him if he'll help you open the jar or reach something in a high place. It's a subtle and ambiguous way for you to draw attention to the sex differences without seeming like you're doing it on purpose. Or if he does something silly but masculine, you can be like "Ugh... You're such a man." It'll sound like you're taking a dig at him, but he'll probably take it as a compliment if you do it with a jovial and teasing tone. You can even initiate more physical touch if you lightly smack him on the arm or something. Any time you can subtly and ambiguously draw his attention to how you've noticed his masculinity will really press his buttons. But with all these things, subtlety is key, and less is more. Don't seem too into him, even if you are. So, distance makes the heart grow fonder. Don't be on him all the time. Initiate flirty behavior with him only mildly at first and only once in a conversation. It should be ambiguous, so that he has to wonder and guess a bit. He should never be more than 40% sure that you like him until he initiates a date. And let him escalate the situation. Set up all the right conditions for him to approach, but let him muster up the courage and wonder as to whether or not you'll say yes. This will get him more invested, and it will make him feel like a million bucks when you say yes. It's like a dance of sorts. In a dance, the man appears to make the first step but it is actually the woman who does. She has to step backward first before the man steps forward. And it gives the illusion of the man leading. But if the man were to actually make the first step before the woman does, he would just step on her toes. So, be sure to metaphorically "throw down the handkerchief" first, so that he knows to approach you. Edit: Also, be sure that you only reserve this treatment for him specifically. If you are flirtatious with other men while being flirtatious with him, it will completely subvert the meaning from "I wonder if she likes me?" to "Oh, I see. She must just do that with all the guys." So, the former will make you seem more rare and hard to get, and the latter will make you seem more common and lukewarm.

Thank you.

Well said. I think a lot of guys in cultures where it is seen as normal to cold approach women, tend to believe that women generally appreciate it when they usually don't. But then they tend to think it's just instinctual to do cold approaches and that they could never find someone if they didn't do them. Now, I don't necessarily have an issue with guys approaching in general. I understand why cold approaching gives a guarantee of sorts when warm approach does not, as cold approach is a numbers game based in probability. And most of the time it's a really neutral experience, that's just a slight nuisance. But I do have an issue with them being naive and thinking that their success with the minority of women who are more responsive to cold approaches indicates that most or all women actually appreciate cold approaches and that it will "make their day" or "be positive most of the time" or that "they like it when it's done right". These ideas are so far removed from the reality of the situation, that it just has to be pointed out. Most women view cold approaches as more of a chore than anything else and have a script to run that gets them out of that situation without hurting the guy's feelings too much. So, they'll smile and laugh and say thank you to be nice. Having to reject people is actually really uncomfortable, because you don't know how that person will react. So, there's always an element of trying to finesse out of the situation and move on. This is not fun or exciting. It's going through the motions with a slight anxiety about how he will take the rejection. So, being approached by a random guy has never been a situation where I've come away floating. And I'm pretty sure that most (if not all) the women I know would say the same.

Maybe it contradicts your personal interpretation of the woman's experience as a man. But it doesn't actually contradict your experience, since you haven't been on the receiving end of so many cold approaches as a woman. I can tell you, as a woman who has been on the receiving end of so many cold approaches, that I am searching my memory right now for a cold approach experience that was genuinely positive to me past age 15, and I can't find one. Most of them are just neutral and something to forget about a moment later, and some are unpleasant. No. I wouldn't approach a random guy on the street because I have no desire to do so. Number one, it takes days to weeks to develop an attraction to a man and there is no reason to assume any random guy on the street will spark my attraction. Number two, approaching random men on the street can be quite dangerous. Women generally like to circulate around men that they know and admire and hope that he approaches. So, the female fantasy is very context-laden and involves a guy that they've been around quite a lot. And probably very few women fantasize about being cold approached. Women, will talk to eachother a lot about the men they like. But it's always some guy that they work with or go to school with or someone they met on Tinder. So, unless a woman is really not picky, she probably isn't going to be interested in a cold approach. Now, do it anyway if it works for you. But understand that women work differently than men. What works for you as a numbers game by casting the net wider to have more chance of getting a yes, is generally not interesting to women unless they're in a club or bar or other singles location. I recall, back when I was in my late teens and early 20s, my friends and I would laugh about being approached by random guys. And I was always like, "Does this actually work on anyone?" I genuinely thought that it was silly for them to even try that method, as I assumed that no one would genuinely be responsive. It's kind of like how I see the Nigerian Prince emails. Like "Who actually falls for that?" Not that I'm saying it's always a scam when a guy approaches. But quite a large amount of the time it is. So, from the female perspective, a man who approaches for the "wrong" reason or the "wrong" way, are not discernable from a man who approaches for the "right" reason or the "right" way. They all get lost in the vast sea of pick-up attempts that the woman has already experienced in her life. After a while, rejecting advances is as routine as brushing your teeth. They're mostly forgettable experiences. So, from a female perspective, it is generally not positive. She may smile and laugh and say thank you as part of her routine, but this doesn't mean it was a positive experience.

This sounds like a very messy kind of situation with her. It seems like she has a hard time setting boundaries for herself. Also, I don't think relationships with an age disparity are inherently bad, per say. My husband is 12 years older than I am. But if you find a person who consistently seeks out partners with an age disparity, especially toward people younger than them, it can be a red flag that perhaps they want someone to control. So, it is a bit of a red flag that you and her ex are the same age. Plus, she's saying her ex is a narcissistic schizo, and if she frequently speaks badly of him then it can be an indicator of issues with herself where she's giving you only her side of the story. So, if I were in your position, I would move on and find someone else. There's too much chaos around this woman, and it's probably a bad sign for a complicated and harrowing future. And since you're already so attached to her and you're less experienced than she is, she may be manipulating you without you realizing it. My advice is to move on before you get sent on even more of an emotional rollercoaster. Also, you always want to ask yourself, "What if I had a child with this person? Would it be okay for the kid?" This is a really good litmus test to find out if you're in a healthy relationship or not... even if there are no plans for children.

I am financially independent with my channel and coaching business as I make a little over $2k per month from it between ads, coaching, and other miscellaneous things. So, I'm not super wealthy but I'm really just in the beginning of the business end of what I'm doing. So, I've had my channel open for about three years, but I had never really intended to make money from it beyond just ads. So, I hadn't thought of any of the potential for using it to market any service. It was my impression that I would just have my channel and a full-time job side by side. But this was unrealistic. So, I had let my channel fall to the waist-side for a little over a year since my focus was on working. Then, when summertime hit, I decided it would be a good idea to add more content to my channel and be more regular about it. And then, because I'm was a substitute teacher, I had to go back to work in August when school started back and we really needed the money to recover from summer, which is difficult because we work with less income. And I had been toying with the idea of doing life-coaching, but I was nervous. But after a few days of substitute teaching, I was really bothered by it and just didn't want to do it. So, I made a decision in the middle of the night that I was going to offer life-coaching instead of picking up a job the next day. So, I made a post on my Patreon that I would be offering it at a lower price than usual to try it out. And I was surprised that I was able to find a lot of people who were interested in my coaching services. So, I'm currently working on expanding my business by creating new content for my channel and taking courses to get certified in life coaching officially. I also have a course on personality development that's in the works that I plan on selling. So, I anticipate that I'll be able to make more than the $2k that I already make as I continue to expand. But the key reason that I can do this is because I already had quite a few subscribers on my channel. So, it didn't take any crazy marketing strategy to get people interested in my services. I basically just have to mention it in my video at the end that I off coaching or whatever else in the future. And there will likely be some takers.

Like I said (in almost all the other posts in this thread), it will work on a sizable minority of women. So, I understand why guys do it, because it increases their chances. So, continue to do it, if it works for you. My issue is with Leo saying that his blunt approach style is rare and that it will make the woman's day even if she says no, when it is not rare and will be mostly be regarded as an annoyance to move past for the majority of women. The majority of women don't really care for cold approach when they're just going about their day, which is important to be aware of or you're going to step on a lot of toes. So, my issue is not with cold approach itself. My issue is with the misrepresentation of what women generally appreciate and experience relative to cold approach, which adds on to the tons of sexual misinformation about women that already exists. And it's going to make a bunch of young guys reading his post think that it will be appreciated by women if he is super straightforward, when it is not. Bluntness like that, makes a guy look like a used dick salesman, and I know this from first-hand experience. So, he's giving terrible advice that's going to make anyone who listens to him look like an ass even if they're really not one. Basically, doing that will trigger a woman's spidey senses. The more subtle you can be about a cold approach, then better. The trick is to make a cold approach feel like a warm approach as much as possible.

Certainly. When I was 11 and 12, my impression of male attention was that it was scarce. So, I was always really excited if I was shown any affirmative male attention, because I thought it meant something about me. Like, "Wow! He really likes me!" But once I got to be about 15 or so, I realized that male attention is not scarce at all and that their interest in me doesn't have anything to do with me as an individual the VAST majority of times. So, I just installed a mental spam filter over the vast majority of male attention. And all cold approaches from strangers automatically go into my spam folder. So, it is a filter of belief... but it's a useful one for avoiding pick-up artists and players and those who are lukewarm.

I think it comes down to going through the motions of being approached and there being a conditioned response of "Ah. This again." So, it's kind of like, most women (at least in America) are used to being approached all the time. So, there is no sense of scarcity relative to male attention, and there have been many experiences with lukewarm guys who are just players. And then, at 16 or 17, realizing that giving a guy like that a try is not really worth the time. And just trying to get through the day. Now, if I were at a club or bar, I'd probably be more responsive to cold approach because of the nature of that setting. But if a guy just randomly tries to chat me up on the street or at the grocery store, it's just a bit annoying and my natural response is to just get on with my day and move on without hurting the guy's feelings... which is uncomfortable as well. So, I don't think it's possible at this point, knowing what I know and having experienced what I've experienced, to really buy into a pick-up attempt. It's kind of like how you know someone is trying to sell you something, and the main focus becomes finding a way to end the conversation. But as for your other question... Personally, it always takes a while for a real attraction to set in. In the initial few minutes, I'll know if I find him physically attractive or not. But a physically attractive guy will become repulsive and ugly if his character is poor. While some other average looking guy, who maybe didn't catch my eye initially will grow on me over the course of days or weeks. So, the initial few minutes is not enough to give a good indicator of attraction as the attraction needs to simmer for a while to really reveal the chemistry or lack-there-of.

I would say that I am an average woman in the way that I respond to being approached on the street. Most women that I know don't really respond to cold approach, and find it to generally be a nuisance. This makes sense from a biological level, because warm approach is often a lot safer and they're able to better screen their potential partners for indicators of stability, which is important for a bond that may lead to children in the future. That said, a sizable minority of women are open to it, even if many of them still find it annoying most of the time. So, a guy who does pick-up will be able to eventually find someone to say yes. And this is why I understand that men do it. Warm approach makes it harder for a man to find a partner, so I understand why it is not prefered. But what bothers me is the idea that most women like this and are responsive to cold approach when most of them are not. Most women are just annoyed by it regardless of who does it and how it's done. This is why I said that cold approach is mostly "meh" for women, especially if it's very blunt and straightforward like Leo suggested. The more subtle a man can be with his cold approach and making it feel more like warm approach, the better the experience will be for the woman. So, even if there's more success with women to be had for a man using cold approach, this doesn't mean that it's women's preference or that it suits women's needs and desires. It's just that some are willing to make due with cold approach, and men doing cold approach will eventually find them.

My issue is not that men approach. I don't really have an issue with men using cold approach. As I said, I see why it's popular for men to use that method because it helps them cast the net wider and be more likely to get a yes. But, I'm generally unresponsive to them because they are a lot like pop-up ads. That said, I understand that pop-up ads exist because they do work sometimes on some people. Also, you're talking to a bisexual woman about how I should be glad that I don't have to approach. Try approaching someone when there's a 90+% chance that they don't even have the "right" sexual orientation, and do it in a very conservative area. So, I empathize with men in this way. So, my issue is with you saying that it's rare, when it is not rare at all for a guy to approach with that line and level of straightforwardness. And to say that it would be flattering for most women and would "make their day" even if they say no, when this is misleading on both fronts. It's actually very common, and is mostly a nuisance to most women most of the time. I have been female for my entire life and I've also been approached by men I know and strangers probably over 500 times. This even feels like a modest estimate. So, none of this is being approached theoretically, but comes from about 16 years of being on the receiving end of both warm and cold approaches. And I'm telling you that your advice in this situation sucks. And a lot of young and inexperienced guys are going to listen to you and fail. So, I know that attraction isn't a logical choice. But it is never instant. It takes a while to coalesce. I've never had an instantaneous attraction to a guy... it normally floats up to the surface after a few days of having known him. I'm sure a lot of women are more open to cold approaches, but I think your method is ham-fisted and will make you seem very common, especially if you think that women are really flattered when you're that straightforward because of the "rarity" of it. I know I would just think you were a buster.

Nah. It would be a little off-brand for my channel. But I do think cold approach makes sense from a male perspective. It just is kind of meh from a female perspective. So, my main issue is that men don't really know how it's perceived from the receiving end. So, some inexperienced guy could hear what Leo said, and assume that that approach is rare and generally appreciated, when it's usually neither.

Yeah. Most of the time, if I'm approached I smile and say thank you to be polite and keep the situation friendly. So, I can see why Leo thought that it would really make a woman's day to hear that. But it's almost like running a script like you would at the mall with the kiosk sales-people who are offering free samples and stuff like that.

I don't know if that's the best analogy. A push into cold water would at least be shocking. But my main point is that it's too common of a method to use to stand out. Paradoxically, subtlety makes you stand out a lot more because most guys who approach are really straightforward.

But Leo was recommending to go up and do cold approaches in that way. To which, I logically assumed the idea was to do that with many women until you get a number or an affirmative answer of some kind. So, from a woman's perspective, it will always feel like scrounging if a guy is that straightforward because you can tell it's a canned pick-up line. So, this is why it kills the meaning and excitement for me, because I know that he's probably just trying to get whatever he can get and approaching many women. Thus, being approached by a man who starts with "You're attractive, so I wanted to talk to you." is just a really dime-a-dozen kind of approach, because that approach is basic af and leaves nothing to the imagination. So, it's just pretty obvious when a guy does a cold approach, especially if he comes right in with a compliment, that he probably does that with multiple women. So, I don't really see any way around that factor. I would literally have to unlearn all of my past experiences with guys who do that and the wisdom of knowing they are probably lukewarm about their feelings for me individually, to be remotely receptive to a guy who does that. But it's not that this is playing out in my head. It's just played out in my life at least 100 times with myself being on the receiving end. So, I'm just saying that it might be effective by the sheer numbers involved... but it's still very basic and boring for most women. And every third approach a woman gets involves a direct statement of "I find you attractive".

This is not a rare thing for men that approach women to do. In my experience, it's a relatively common method of approach. It's a close second to simply engaging in conversation, and not by a very wide margin. And in truth, if a guy is that straightforward like that, it's a bit boring for my personal taste because the meaning behind the action is what I get a kick out of. And if a guy approaches me in that manner, it shows me that he almost certainly does that with every other woman he sees. So, it loses any meaning because it feels like he's trying to pick the low hanging fruit with me. And since the meaning is the aphrodisiac, it doesn't make me feel anything endearing toward him. And if I were to get to know him personally, it also destroys any tension of wondering how he feels which isn't 100% necessary but it still creates less of a magnetism and wonder about him as he already started at 11. So, it probably doesn't flatter as many women as you think it does, unless they're a bit sheltered and really not used to being approached, as this is dime-a-dozen territory. Most women, learn before they're even adults that being complimented by random guys means literally nothing about them as an individual. So, when a guy says, "You are attractive." a woman hears, "Hey. You have a vagina. Would you care for a penis?" Now, I understand that cold approach is the easiest way to meet potential partners for men because it allows them to cast the net wide and you'll eventually get a yes. So, I understand why cold-approach is popular with men... but to women 99% of the time it's like being approached by a kiosk vender that wants to sell you something. So, most women find cold approaches to be more of a nuisance and don't really take them seriously unless they're in a singles setting like a club or bar. Do them anyway if it works for you, but don't think you're breaking any molds.

There is a common email fraud scheme where a guy claims to be a rich Nigerian prince. And he says that he wants you to have his fortune in exchange for giving up your personal information, or something of that nature.

@Shir Since you haven't been in relationships, it may not be clear. But this guy's behavior is not normal, and it makes me suspect a manipulative agenda that extends beyond just wanting a relationship. Normally, a guy won't fixate in this way until he really knows a woman and really likes her. But if he hasn't even seen your picture, and his reaction is this strong, I seriously suspect that something is fishy with him like foul play and catfishing, or that he's got some issues himself. So, I agree with your therapist that you need to tell him a solid "no." This may feel strange if you're not hit on regularly, because you're not used to it. But with a persistent guy it's very important to learn how to just say, "No. I'm sorry. I'm not interested." and if necessary, "...and if you keep pushing the issue then I'm just going to block you."

A lot of it has to do with packaging, marketing, branding, and communication style. And then you should also know your way around some basic SEO. So, getting exposure on YouTube often has to do with things that are purely practical and not in relation to the actual spiritual content you're putting out. Luckily, there are a ton of videos to help you learn these things. So, the quality of the content should be high. But even if a person has high quality content, if their packaging/marketing/branding/communication style isn't there, then a lot of people will just go elsewhere. And this is because, on a subconscious level, people will take a YouTuber less seriously if they don't have a consistent thumbnail style, high quality video imaging, and good editing. Also, for SEO, on the initial front, be sure to tag, title, describe, and talk using words and phrases that people will likely type into Google search and YouTube search. It will be nearly impossible to be found as a small channel to do otherwise, as it's hard for YouTube to recommend your video to anyone, it won't know where to rank you, and you won't have an established subscriber base to boost your viewcount and watchtime upon initial release. But there is also a huge luck factor as well. All the biggest channel growth moments for me, have come out of nowhere and in big spurts. Like I recently just jumped from getting about 20 subs per day to getting about 50 subs per day. But if you have any questions, feel free to ask.