Nobody wants to do, but everyone wants to be because beyond doing is the state of being. You study because you want to be smart, successful or whatever. So if you remove this desire to do, you will clearly see that what lies at the end of the tunnel is the want of being something. We do something to be something, right? And a lot of people don’t want to do and just want to be. So, no matter what, if you are a doer or a non-doer, everybody wants to be. Thus, it is a bigger time. So, analysis of states is better than how to do those things or get to that state. For example, what is beauty or who is beautiful is better content than how to be beautiful. Because the state of being is something that is recurring in nature that we keep revisiting that want a lot of times. So a person, since their childhood might always want to be a rock star, they might just for a brief period learn how to make music. And never visit it again. But till they die, they might keep revisiting this dream of being a rock star and consume content around it.

So even if you are making spectacular explainers, you have to keep in mind that what you are essentially going after is the state of being.

Doing is episodic. Being is persistent.

So for those who seek recurring attention and revists this is important

A person may only occasionally want to do the work required to become beautiful, rich, intelligent, creative, respected, fit, fashionable, powerful, interesting, free, artistic, etc. But the desire to be those things can remain active for years.

Someone might watch:

“How to become a musician” once or twice.
“Why Prince was a genius” fifty times in different forms.
“What separates great musicians from ordinary ones.”
“The most beautiful guitars ever made.”
“Why certain people seem naturally artistic.”
“What musicians hear that normal people don’t.”
“Inside the life of a touring musician.”

Recurring human drive → desired state of being → recurring appetite → repeated viewing.

Yep, I think that’s why how you can do it is worse type of content than how XYZ did or does it

“How to become a great writer” asks the viewer to work.

“How Hemingway wrote” lets the viewer inspect greatness.

It’s like everybody has a plan until they get punched in the face. In the arena, Everyone panics. So nobody wants to enter the arena. So if you position your content as if they are going to be in the arena, then you are making it unattractive. You have to make it about others. Something people can enjoy from their armchairs. People would rather be spectators than the man in arena.

The durable desire concerns being something. The preferred consumption mode is often spectatorship.

What do people wanna be?

At the deepest level, people usually want to be some combination of:

Loved — desired, chosen, admired, wanted.

Respected — competent, formidable, important, taken seriously.

Beautiful — attractive, stylish, youthful, aesthetically right.

Powerful — influential, autonomous, hard to control.

Rich — abundant, secure, free from constraint.

Free — able to go where they want, work how they want, answer to nobody.

Smart — insightful, informed, intellectually impressive.

Talented — naturally gifted, creative, exceptional.

Healthy — energetic, strong, youthful, capable.

Interesting — cultured, experienced, distinctive, someone with stories.

Belonging — part of the right group, scene, tribe, profession, class.

Special — not ordinary; rare, ahead of the curve, misunderstood in a flattering way.

Good — moral, kind, honorable, someone they themselves can respect.

Safe — protected, prepared, difficult to threaten.

Calm — unbothered, composed, internally secure.

Certain — someone who understands what is happening and knows what to do.

Successful — visibly winning according to whatever scoreboard matters to them.

Independent — self-sufficient, capable, not needy.

Young/alive — adventurous, sexually alive, energetic, still full of possibility.

Remembered — significant enough that their existence leaves some trace.

And these combine into more culturally specific identities:

rock star, founder, genius, billionaire, beautiful woman, dangerous man, artist, athlete, intellectual, tastemaker, explorer, rebel, great parent, elite professional, mysterious person, old-money person, hacker, soldier, monk, celebrity, craftsman.

That second layer is especially useful for content.

“Wealth” is abstract.

“What billionaire heirs actually do all day” gives wealth a body.

“Intelligence” is abstract.

“How John von Neumann thought” gives intelligence a character.

“Beauty” is abstract.

“Why Monica Bellucci became a beauty archetype” gives beauty a face.

“Freedom” is abstract.

“The people who live permanently out of hotels” gives freedom a lifestyle.

So you can think of it as:

Primal desired state → cultural archetype → observable person/object/story.

Power → feared leader → how Caesar controlled a room.

Taste → tastemaker → why Dieter Rams’ work still looks modern.

Freedom → wandering creative → how writers lived in Paris hotels.

Intelligence → genius → how Feynman solved problems.

Desirability → icon → why certain actors remain sex symbols for decades.

And people don’t even need to believe they’ll become the archetype. They can revisit it endlessly because they enjoy contemplating the state itself.

That’s probably where some of the biggest recurring media reservoirs live:

beauty, wealth, power, genius, status, love, freedom, youth, talent, danger, taste, and exceptional lives.