Episode 149: How AI can Amplify Human Flourishing with Tamara Lechner

Ashish Kothari:

Hi, Tamara. It is so exciting to have you with us on the Happiness Squad Podcast. Thank you for joining us.

Tamara Lechner:

Oh, thank you for the invitation. I've been looking forward to this conversation.

Ashish Kothari:

So, my friend, I want to start from—you are somebody who wrote a book on happiness. You've been in that space and peak performance. From all of the work I see you doing today, all of your commitment and dedication is on flourishing, really being at the center of flourishing and AI conversations as part of your role as the chair at Harvard for that working group.

I am curious about what led you to double down on really exploring AI and the science of flourishing as this focal point at this stage in your life right now?

Tamara Lechner:

Yeah. What a great place to begin. I’ve been in this space talking about happiness, then happiness transformed to wellbeing, and then wellbeing transformed to flourishing.

At the heart of it, it all comes back to this knowing-doing gap. Humans know what we need to do to be happy, to perform our best, to contribute to things that matter, and yet we often get knocked off our pathway because of external voices telling us we need more status, more money, more things.

What I’ve been curious about for a long time is how do we create the conditions and behaviors that lead to flourishing as individuals and as a collective? If we do this together, we all rise together. I see AI as an amplifier, a helper to individualize this.

The science of happiness isn’t a recipe, it’s a list of ingredients, and it’s very different for every human in every context and geography. My wish when I first heard about AI was that this technology, which can do some things humans can’t, could look at this vast contextual knowledge and help us know: what’s the thing I can do that will make the most impact on my happiness or performance with the least effort from me? I think AI is the perfect companion to help us bridge that knowing-doing gap.

Ashish Kothari:

We set that as the anchor for everything we did at the Happiness Squad. That was the reason I didn’t go down the research route. Around that time, the McKinsey Health Institute was being formed and I had an opportunity to be part of that research. I fundamentally believed—and the reason I left—was that we don’t need more research now.

Jan Emanuel, Jackie, and others would disagree. My point was not that we don’t need more research; we always need more research. But if we even implemented 5% of what we know from the last 20-plus years on individual, team, and system-level flourishing, we would be miles ahead. Research is needed, but what was really needed was to translate that research into practice—practice that we can do as teams together. That became the origin story for Happiness Squad.

Tamara Lechner:

 Well, you’re preaching to the choir. My why is really the same, and I don’t come from an academic background. It always cracks me up a little that I’m involved with this group at Harvard, where the school is prioritizing research—and it’s beautiful.

There’s so much out there, but like you, I recognize that we write a paper that takes three years, tells us so much, and then fizzles. It doesn’t go anywhere. My real hope as a businesswoman is to create a sustainable business that helps people apply this science in a digestible way, rather than keeping it high-level for those who have spent years researching it.

I often liken it to grandma science. It’s all the things my grandma wanted for me. She wanted me to be happy, to have a good social life, to live a life that was meaningful and purposeful, and to accomplish things. You can say it in plain English without academic jargon. Kids understand it. So yes, I’m absolutely aligned with what you’re saying, Ashish.

Ashish Kothari:

So let’s go to the second question I have for you: AI in the context of flourishing—friend or foe?

Tamara Lechner:

Yeah, I think this is a brilliant question. Like any tool, it’s both. It depends on your use, it depends on your context.

We’ve seen a lot of media telling us that AI is a foe. When we are doom scrolling, when it is using us and we are not using it, it’s definitely a foe. This is part of what we’re endeavoring to do with the AI for Human Flourishing Framework we’ve created—to help builders and buyers understand that it’s not only about protection from harm and fair and responsible AI. That’s just the baseline.

We actually want AI to lift us—to help us connect better socially, to form and fix meaningful relationships, to perform at our best, to help us get into flow, to connect with others who can move faster without breaking things.

So the question is kind of a trick question because, like any tool, it can be used for good or for harm. It really depends on our moral compass beneath the use of the tool.

That is why I am spending so much time challenging people that we can use this to make being human better. Human intelligence is different than artificial intelligence, and I think they have a beautiful synergy.

But if we can’t shift our mindset first—and I spend a lot of time talking about mindsets—there’s a lot of fear, as there should be, around this technology. We’ve seen what went wrong when we released social media out to the world without truly thinking about the impact.

So I encourage people to think of the intent, yes, but the impact even more importantly. Before you start to use something, think: is it dragging my attention somewhere, or am I in control of where my attention goes? Is it doing something without my consent that I could regret later? Is it using my information in a way I might not want out there?

It’s really about asking good questions. I wish it was protected by government regulation to help us do this, but in the absence of that, as humans, we need to start educating ourselves and sharing our knowledge with one another to make sure it’s used to help us all really flourish.

Ashish Kothari:

You know, I’ve thought about this question a lot. It was a trick question, but it wasn’t really a trick question. Your response has sparked a couple of thoughts for me. Yes, it is a tool, but it is so much more than that.

I was having a conversation with a dear friend of mine two days ago as we drove to one of the meetings for the Conscious Capitalism chapter in Colorado that we started not long ago. It comes from this idea: a knife is neither good nor bad. In the hands of a surgeon, a scalpel saves lives. In the hands of a murderer, it takes lives.

Tamara Lechner:

 Yeah.

Ashish Kothari:

Right? So yes, nothing inherently is good or bad. It is the intent and how we use it. But what is also true is that when we look at humans as a collective, we are at the top of the food chain because we’ve been amazing at inventing technology. We are living way longer. We’ve eliminated so many of the external microbes that used to kill us.

Today, what kills us are our own lifestyle-created chronic ailments. Obesity was not a problem a hundred years ago—starvation was. Cancer was not the problem; diphtheria was.

When we look at how humans have used technology, more as groups of humans—organizations like these amorphous beings created by humans but almost with their own consciousness—we’ve not used these technologies to progress us or amplify flourishing. In fact, we’ve created suffering.

I’ll give you some examples. We discovered nuclear fission—an unbelievable source of energy. We turned that into the largest Cold War because we made bombs out of it and put the whole world into fear. Everyone wanted nuclear armaments.

We invented the internet—amazing. The number one industry that made money and grew out of that wasn’t connection, it was porn. We corrupted people’s minds.

We invented social media. I was so excited with Facebook and WhatsApp because I was connecting with friends I’d lost touch with from high school 20 years ago. Instead of being the biggest source of bringing people together, we turned it into one of the biggest reasons why the world is polarized today.

Instead of connection, we created disconnection by feeding people only the information they agreed with. Suddenly, it feels like everyone agrees with me, and you’re the one who’s odd.

And with AI, if not wielded the right way, I think this technology—because it’s more than a tool, it is an intelligence—can do so much harm.

Every business today has one of three choices. I can use it to give people a day back. I had the CEO of 4 Day Week Global on our podcast not long ago—we can give everybody a day back because we’re so productive.

Or we can use it to let one third of our workforce go because we don’t need them anymore. So many companies are going down, and that seems to be the latest badge of success: how many people did you lay off based on AI.

Or, there’s a middle path: go back to why the company started in the first place. We can use this to amplify that purpose. We can reach way more people with the same number of employees because I’ve made them so much more productive.

I think there is a need for us—whether it was football injuries, tobacco, or social media—government policies always show up 20 years later, after harm is documented and massive. I really do think we can’t wait that long.

We can’t wait 20 years before action is taken to make sure we use this intelligence the right way to amplify human flourishing, and not to train the next two generations of humans to decline in IQ, become cognitively lazy, biased, and confused about reality through deep fakes, further indoctrinated into their own way of being.

Tamara Lechner:

Yeah. You’ve prompted so many ideas, and I want to go back to your idea of the knife as a tool. It’s interesting in the sense that this knife looks like a knife, but we don’t know what the handle is made of, and we don’t know where the blade came from. So we are using this tool without knowing how it’s been developed or what’s going on with what we’re doing.

That’s one massive problem—the lack of standards. We’re able to use something that’s actually using up people rather than lifting up people. That is incredibly problematic.

To think further about what you were saying, one of the things I worry about most is that we’ve become a competitive species rather than a collaborative species.

As a business owner, you have to do your competitive analysis, but I always think of it as “collabotition.” . These people are all trying to solve the same problem I am, so we actually have something in common. What if we could work together to solve that problem so that everybody had enough profit to keep going?

It’s that competitiveness that really concerns me around the future of AI. Regulators cannot move as fast as AI technology. It goes faster than humans, and it’s already out of the box. It’s already doing things we didn’t tell it to do, and it will shut us down if we try to shut it down. We’re already there.

Now the challenge for us as humans is to figure out how we quickly adapt to this difference in human intelligence and artificial intelligence. That academic speed you were talking about earlier is one of those challenges.

By the time we do the research, it’s obsolete because everything about this technology has changed. We’re going to need to adapt. And I think you and I both know how uncomfortable humans are with change. The ability to think flexibly is really going to be the thing that helps us going forward.

Ashish Kothari:

Yeah, I couldn’t agree more. Tamara, you talked about the heart of the work coming out of the group at Harvard—this framework for buyers and builders. It’s anchored around these three pillars. Talk to us about the latest “collabotition”-oriented thinking. I’ve called it coopetition before, but I like “collabotition”.

What are the three pillars around ethical AI that our listeners—leaders for their organizations and individuals—should keep in mind?

Tamara Lechner:

Yeah. I think what I want to do—because the concept of ethical AI for most people is hard to digest—is explain how we boiled the ocean of information out there about flourishing science. We considered what was already being addressed and where we saw gaps.

What we see organizations and product developers thinking about is productivity. Because of things gone wrong, they’re now also thinking of protection from harm and fair AI.

In our world, we think of that as how the LLM might have been trained. Does it have biased information? Does it have stolen proprietary material that prevents a writer from making money because people can access it freely? That’s protection from harm and fair AI.

Then we started to think about what other aspects of human flourishing were being left off the table that are important to us as a species. The most important one is social capital. Based on the work out of Harvard, including Robert Waldinger’s, we know human relationships impact both our mental and physical health.

So we asked: what about AI technology built to enhance the way we communicate, to help us understand one another better? Instead of separating us by taking the human out of the loop, is it telling us when we need a human in the loop? We decided we needed to focus on relationships and collaboration.

We also wanted to focus on growth and development. If AI technology can do some of the things I didn’t enjoy doing anyway, what am I going to do with that time? Hopefully I’ll grow as a human, as a member of a team, as a performer.

What am I going to learn, and how is AI going to help me recognize the gaps between where I am and where I want to be, and help me fill those? AI is beautiful at pattern recognition, while humans are really bad at identifying what they don’t know.

I love some of the confidence research, especially with men. Most men are very confident about things they know nothing about at all. They’ll say they can land a plane in an emergency. More than 50% of men believe, without ever being in a cockpit, that they could successfully land a plane—and it’s simply not true.

AI can help us identify those blind spots and say, “Hey, you might want to actually learn how to do this, because we see this coming in the future of work you love to do.”

Growth and development was one section. Then we went to meaningful work. The science of mattering is about understanding your big purpose—your why am I here—but also your intention in the moment: why am I doing what I’m doing right now? That’s incredibly important.

Often, as humans, it feels overwhelming and we’re blind to it. AI technologies can help us identify that red thread that gives our life meaning.

Personal wellbeing is another area where we’ve already seen work. People are wearing Oura Rings to track their sleep. People are wearing Garmin watches to track blood sugar or resonance with humans. Paul Zak even has a wearable that tells you if you’re having a great conversation with another human that boosts your wellbeing.

So those are the seven aspects we think about with technology. More and more, we’re also thinking about them with compassion, with perspective—who did we not consider that we might impact—and with humility. So much academic work seems to lack humility, and we really like to double down on that.

Ashish Kothari:

Yeah, I love all of these. One that I didn’t hear, Tamara, and that’s why I’m curious about it, is how much of our wellbeing is actually outside of the individual—system, job, and team. McKinsey Health Institute research shows that 72% of holistic wellbeing is driven by demands and enablers there, and 97% of burnout.

So how is that a conversation the group is having? Around more organizational aspects. If we go back to our knife conversation, individuals can do a lot to use AI and technology the right way. But oftentimes, as much as we shape systems, systems shape us. Sometimes they overload us, leaving no time other than to just get stuff done.

So I’m curious if that is one of the areas you’re considering, or maybe would consider adding.

Tamara Lechner:

Yeah, that’s a great question. I’m part of a working group for the IEEE right now where we’re trying to take their wellbeing standard for AI and expand it to become a flourishing standard. What they’ve looked at adding is a section for agency, which feels very important. I’m certainly considering how we might integrate that into the framework we’ve been using.

It’s interesting when you look at the individual. So much of the work in the science of happiness goes back to the individual. But my friend Jason Van, who has a company based out of Australia called Flourish Diagnostics, realized pretty quickly that organizations want to blame the individual because it takes the responsibility off them.

That’s where Amy Edmondson’s work on psychological safety is such an important reminder. So much of that is the culture you arrive into at an organization. I’ve done a lot of work looking at large sets of culture data on behalf of some clients, and it’s fascinating. I think it’s part of the human condition that we want to go to the simple solution.

We go to the individual and say, “Here’s your problem. Solve this.” But you burn out when you’re underpaid, overworked, and in an environment that asks you to be on 24/7, responding to phone, email, and text. It doesn’t allow you to not burn out. You’re absolutely right—I can be the healthiest little goldfish in the bowl, but if the water in my bowl is toxic, eventually it’s going to come back and bite me.

Ashish Kothari:

Culture is the air we breathe. It shapes us in so many ways, around all aspects of our way of being. A lot of the work we are doing is around that organizational level of actually helping.

It’s been 17 years since Alex Edmans published his paper linking employee satisfaction to shareholder return data showing two to three and a half percent alpha. It’s been almost two years since Jan-Emmanuel’s work with Oxford highlighting the link.

And yet, while all the data exists, the journey for most people from head to heart, to actually make changes—the will to act—even when it’s clear it’s in their interests, hasn’t happened.

Human flourishing, as I talk about in my TEDx talk, is not a perk. It’s not a benefit. It is the point. It allows us to grow the pie. It allows us to drive higher shareholder value. It allows us to serve customers better by putting employees at the heart of it. But we’re not moving. We’re not getting there.

The journey from head to heart can sometimes take a lifetime. I don’t think we have a lifetime for organizations and leaders to take that journey.

So I’m curious: what are the conversations like? What are some things you’re seeing companies do—those who are actually choosing to step forward, to role model, to demonstrate—that there is a different way where we put humans at the heart of AI and flourishing, rather than as an afterthought?

Tamara Lechner:

Yeah, I absolutely agree with everything you’re saying. Patagonia is always a beautiful example of a company that does the right thing, even when it’s hard.

It’s incredibly unfortunate that the way technology has rolled out has been shaped by what I always think of as the stereotypical “tech bro.” They want a hierarchy where they’re at the top of the food chain.

For the most part, they’re looking for hockey stick returns. Anytime I hear about a company getting unicorn status, that hockey stick return usually comes with the people at the bottom not getting their fair share.

Ashish Kothari:

Not only are they not getting their fair share, I think it’s more like those are built on the backs and blood of the people.

Tamara Lechner:

Absolutely, you’re a hundred percent right. If we were studying chimpanzees and saw one chimpanzee grab all the bananas and not share them with the rest, we would say there’s something wrong with that chimpanzee. We’d probably get rid of that chimpanzee.

Yet what we’ve done as a society is hold these chimps who want all the bananas in the highest regard. We have our youth wanting to be them and we shifted. The whole influencer society blows my mind—that people want their 15 minutes of fame no matter what, no matter what they have to do to get it.

We are witnessing this at its worst, probably because we have access to so much more media due to the technology we’ve created. That’s why I formed this group: we need to speak with the same language about how to correct this, why it matters, and really put it out there.

As humans who have agency—even though we don’t have the power to create regulations, and we’re not at the top of the political spectrum—we do have a voice. We can behave in the way we wish the rules were written. That’s where our movement comes from. We talk about turning people from an audience into activists.

As we hear from the next generation, not doing something is no longer acceptable. That’s not allyship, it’s not helping anyone. To move us forward as a species, I’m passionate about turning an audience into activists. With AI technology, that especially comes with education, because the average human doesn’t have the information these tech bros have.

It’s almost impossible to stay apprised of the rate of change of AI technology. I’m not a technologist. I listen to very smart humans I trust deeply, and I still have huge hope for us as a species because I’ve done the work moving from head to heart. I look for others like you and so many of the people involved in the Human Flourishing Network and the World Flourishing Organization.

I believe that drop by drop, we make a difference.

Ashish Kothari:

 Yeah. Drop by drop, we make a difference. I’m reminded of this beautiful Zen story of a man who was on a walk on the beach. Have you heard that story?

Tamara Lechner:

It’s one of my favorite stories, but please tell it for your audience.

Ashish Kothari:

He sees this boy furiously running back and forth, throwing starfish back into the water. There are thousands of starfish on the beach, and the sun is rising. It’s such a beautiful sight, but instead of just sitting and taking it in, this boy is in constant activity.

The man, who had burnt out and realized he needs to be rather than do, wants to distill this wisdom to the young boy. He says, “Hey, don’t be like me. I spent all my life running. Step back and look at nature, how beautiful it is, and take it in.”

The boy replies, “I don’t have time for that. I’m trying to save the starfish. Join me and help me save them. Because when the sun comes out, they’ll all die.”

The man looks at the sun and says, “The starfish are like the never-ending to-do list. It’ll never get done. There are so many, you’ll never save them all.”

The boy says, “Yeah, but I can save that one. I can save that one.” And he continues on, doing what he’s doing.

I love what you just said, Tamara—that we need to find others who, like us, are united in this mission. Let’s join our lights so we can shine brighter. Because the world is getting more complex, and change is accelerating at an unbelievable pace. Unless we shine our light, the darkness that comes from change and the fear that comes with it can overtake us.

As individuals, when we pull together, amplify each other’s work, amplify the message, and support each other when we’re struggling, we can hold one another. That’s what will make the difference in the next 5, 10, 15, 20 years.

Tamara Lechner:

I hope so. The one gap I see, that I’m working to bridge, is the lack of funding for work that involves flourishing, happiness, or peak performance—especially happiness and flourishing.

I’m involved with a group based out of Harvard that has zero funding. People ask me to come speak at conferences, and the academics are funded by their schools. But my network is entirely volunteer—we don’t even have a bank account.

I understand the value of forming a nonprofit and structuring, but it’s interesting how hard that lift is compared to being a technologist. If I’m developing something and have a great pedigree with a group of PhDs on my website, I can get millions of dollars from VCs.

As someone filtering products through our framework to see if they have a positive impact on humans, I’ve seen unbelievably bad products that have received a lot of money. It’s incredibly frustrating to see ideas where someone decided they have a simple questionnaire that’s going to change culture, with no culture background and no research background. Yet because they have a friend of a friend who went to the right school and knows a VC, suddenly they have $10 million to spend.

That’s incredibly frustrating. So I’m curious, because you’ve been doing that kind of work longer—where are you seeing the bright spots? The people who are throwing the starfish back? The founders trying to do work that will lift all humans, even in the absence of funding?

Ashish Kothari:

 Two years ago, I was at a retreat and I asked for inspiration and guidance on how to navigate this journey. For me, this is my second mountain journey. This is what I will do until my last breath on this planet. This is the mission: democratizing flourishing and helping a billion people live with more joy, health, love, and meaning.

We’re going to do it by driving organizations to higher performance through fundamentally changing work—addressing the elephant in the room, the 80% that drives all these symptoms.

If we fix that, we also save the climate, because thriving humans create thriving planets and ecosystems. When only 20% of people are thriving and 80% are not, we’re not going to create better outcomes for the planet or communities. That’s the reality, and that’s my commitment.

The inspiration I received was “stillness in motion.” We think of the world in polarities: funded and not funded, right and wrong, friend and foe, ethical and non-ethical, purpose and profit, good and bad, light and dark. Yet in spiritual traditions, in psychology, and even in our own brains, the fundamental truth is that light can’t exist without dark. Stillness and motion coexist.

The vision that came to me was of an eagle soaring over mountains, using natural wind currents to cover miles without flapping its wings—stillness in motion. The inspiration was to find the natural wind currents, find those who believe.

Yes, it’s not easy. If it were easy, it wouldn’t be missionary work. If it were as easy as someone with a bad product and a connection raising money, then we wouldn’t be heroes. We’d just be ordinary people. That’s why we need to group together and do the hard work.

There is no gain without pain. There is no gold without heat. There are no diamonds without pressure. The most beautiful act humans can do is give birth, and there is no birth without suffering—at least for the mother.

For me, our mission is about finding leaders. Not just experts—we need those too—but leaders. How can I have a thousand conversations in a year? From those thousand, maybe I find 100 who are interested or already on their way from head to heart.

Out of those 100, maybe 30 say, “Not now.” Another 30 say, “I don’t need the Taj Mahal, I just need a hut.” And maybe 30 say, “I’m in.” If we help those 30, those 30 can impact 30,000.

That’s our strategy: have a thousand conversations every year, with people who have the dollars, the positions, but most importantly, who have done the journey.

On Wednesday, we discussed a bold idea. I love the Bain & Company Net Promoter Score—it’s one question. While others had 10 or 15 questions, Bain had one: “On a scale of 1 to 10, how likely are you to recommend this business?”

One of the CEOs at the table asked: if you want to find those people, have you thought about testing for love? Love in the workplace. Love. Fundamentally, if you resolve the self and the other, what comes is love—love for all. Not romantic love, but love from the understanding that we are one.

Yes, it will feel artificial and turn off 90%. But those 90% aren’t doing anything anyway. Maybe we ask: Do you believe love—the core essence of love—should be part of your company’s foundation? Love for consumers, customers, suppliers, employees, and the world around us.

Those who say yes, that love must be an integral value in the world going forward—maybe that’s where we start to work together.

I’m curious—what do you think about that?

Tamara Lechner:

Yeah, it’s so interesting that you say that, Ashish, because I’ve encountered more and more consultants and external experts using the language of love in the workplace. It does feel jarring, especially if you’re a worker on a line or a teller at a bank. It’s not a language they’re familiar with.

And yet, some of the greatest AI work I’ve seen coming out of Stanford recently had that question of love in mind: Would you give this product to your child to use? And if not, why did you build it? If that’s not love, I don’t know what is.

I think you’re right that 90% will have huge pushback. One of the things I’ve seen in organizational work is that leaders often ask, “What do I do with the resistors?” There will always be pushback.

I always say, what you focus on gets bigger. If you focus on the resistors, you’ll be surrounded by resistance. But if you focus on those who already show up with love, those who already understand what you’re talking about, and amplify that—that’s where progress happens.

You’ve reminded me of something I already knew. I often say the journey to happiness is one of unlearning. There are so many cultural beliefs we take on that we need to unlearn. You’ve reminded me of one I want to unlearn today, so thank you for that.

Ashish Kothari:

My pleasure, my friend. This has been an amazing conversation. Keeping an eye on time, I want to know: how do you take care of yourself? How do you love yourself and make sure your cup is full?

You’re a mother, a technologist, you do your work with Harvard as a volunteer, you’re a podcast host, you do individual happiness work, you serve companies—that’s so many roles you play. What are some practices that help you flourish personally? Which, if they didn’t exist, Tamara would not be the same?

Tamara Lechner:

 Beautiful question. At the heart of it, it’s presence. I have a meditation practice that is just a must-have. It doesn’t even feel like a practice anymore—it’s like brushing my teeth. It’s just part of what I do that helps me stay centered.

The way you described my life is another part of it. I’m a human who loves novelty. I would absolutely be crushed by doing a “job job,” as I call them, where you’re paid for your time and have to do things that don’t matter to you.

All of the many things you described are things that fill my cup. I love being a mother. I love being a partner. I love being involved with this AI group. I love the measurement of flourishing. I like writing. I love the novelty of all these things.

For me, that contributes to filling my cup because I get to play in different spaces. For someone else, that might be depleting. For me, that’s one must-have.

I’ve also started to consider what technology-enhanced practices help me. One that I’ll share with your audience, because it’s fun, is something I created to show students that technology can be used to connect and lift you rather than drag you down.

I call it “Text Your Day in Five Emojis.” I’ve lived in lots of places, and it’s a great way to stay connected with good friends who aren’t in the same time zone and don’t have time for long conversations. Randomly, when the thought hits us, we text five emojis. The other person interprets them, usually in a humorous way, because emojis are so open to interpretation.

I’ll text five emojis to my friend Mika, who lives in Ontario. A couple of hours later, she’ll text back what she thinks my day has been. It’s usually funny, and then we reverse it. It takes minutes, but we feel connected in a way we didn’t before.

It’s a practice that socially connects us using a device, modeling good use of technology, and then it goes away. No doom scrolling, no endless screen time. Just a way of saying, “I’m thinking about you. Here’s my day. What about yours?” It’s a beautiful practice I love to keep.

Ashish Kothari:

I love that practice. You have my cell phone—text me, if possible, today or tomorrow, five emojis, and I’ll try to tell you what they meant. I’ll also have to learn how to send emojis; I don’t know how to do that, but I’ll figure it out.

I really loved this conversation. I look forward to staying in touch. We’re going to do great things with the World Flourishing Organization. I hope to see you as part of that, and I look forward to collaborating together.

Thank you for the wonderful work, for all that you put out into the universe, and for the personal investment you’re making, Tamara. I’m grateful to know you and delighted to call you my friend.

Tamara Lechner:

Thank you so much, Ashish. I think this is a dot, dot, dot—to be continued.

Ashish Kothari:

 Absolutely. Take care and have an amazing day, my friend.

Tamara Lechner:

Thank you. You as well.