Podcast Player Episode 071

Dr. Robin Stern: Welcome to The Gaslight Effect podcast. I'm Robin Stern, co-founder and associate director of the Yale Center for Emotional Intelligence, and author of the bestselling book, The Gaslight Effect. I'm an educator and a psychoanalyst, but first and foremost, I'm a wife, a mother, a sister, aunt, and healer. And just like many of you, I was a victim of gaslighting. Please join me for each episode as I interview fascinating guests and explore the concept of gaslighting. You'll learn what it truly means to be gaslighted, how it feels, how to recognize it, and how to understand it, and ultimately how to get out of it.

Dr. Robin Stern: Before we begin, I want you to know that talking about gaslighting can bring up challenging and painful emotions. Give yourself permission to feel them. Some of you may wanna go more deeply with your emotions. While some of you may hold them more lightly, no matter what you're feeling, know that your emotions are a guide to your inner life. Your emotions are sacred and uniquely you respect and embrace them for they have information to give you. If you want to listen to other episodes of the Gaslight Effect Podcast, you can find them at robinstern.com or wherever you listen to podcasts. Thank you for being here with me. Welcome everyone to this episode of the Gaslight Effect podcast. I am thrilled today to have with me my friend and colleague, Ramu Damodaran. Ramu is permanent observer for the University of Peace to the United Nations, and you've had a long history with the United Nations and in diplomacy through India. Um, can you just tell the audience a little bit about who you are and, and what inspired you to pursue this incredible career in diplomacy thought leadership?

Ramu Damodaran: Uh, thank you. Thank you, Robin. I was actually extremely fortunate because we had a system when I was at university in India where if you chose to pursue a master's degree in history, you would more or less be covered for at least six of the eight papers as they were called for the National Civil Services exam. The way things worked were that you could apply to be in the National Civil Services once you turned 21 or joined once you turned 21. And the National Civil Services comprised the foreign service, which of course is where diplomacy comes in. Something we have in India called the National Administrative Service that is looking after affairs within India, plus a whole range of other services, such as the equivalent of the IRS in this country. The audits and account service, or the equivalent of the customs in this country, the Indian Custom Service.

Ramu Damodaran: And the way it works is that when you apply for the examination, you place your priorities or where you would most rather be. So in my case, the foreign service was right on top and then the administrative and so on. And then depending on where you stand in the eventual merit list, you either get your first choice or your second or your third and so on. So I was exceptionally lucky because as I said, I did an exam in effect twice. I did it for the masters in Delhi University, and then pretty much the same papers were in the syllabus for the administrative and Pollen services. And I got in with a high enough score to be able to join the Foreign Service. So that brought me into diplomacy. The other factor that really I think governed my choice of the foreign service was the family to which I was born.

Ramu Damodaran: My father was in the foreign service and in a very unlikely way, because he was a fighter in the Indian National Movement, our struggle for independency, he was jailed by the British and lost a number of years of education as a result. So by the time he thought of applying for the Foreign Service, he was already 32, which is 10 years after the minimum age from foreign service. But the government of India at that time relaxed the provisions for people who had taken part in the national movement. So he came in under that quota, and though he had a fairly abridged career, much shorter than his contemporaries and peers, he really did enjoy it and wandering around the world with my mother. And he, I began to enjoy it as well. And I suddenly realized at one point that I was not so much missing people whom we had left to the post that we had moved on from, but I was looking forward with anticipation to new friends I would make, and that I think in a sense, governs the way a person's in, uh, involvement with diplomacy comes in.

Dr. Robin Stern: That's so interesting, being looking forward, looking forward, you mean to right. Those relationships and nourishing those relationships.

Ramu Damodaran: Absolutely.

Dr. Robin Stern: That's really interesting. And how does all of this, uh, connect to the University of Peace? Tell us how you believe, um, university of your, how you're working towards, 'cause I know you are working towards moving University of Peace, um, to a more elevated, more visible position and taking its place on the global stage promoting peace.

Ramu Damodaran: The University for Peace is now 40 odd years old. It was started in the early eighties, and the United Nations General Assembly blessed it by taking note with appreciation of the establishment of this university, which really came into being as a result of an offer made to the United Nations by the president of Costa Rica. At that time, he, he offered us land, he offered us hospitality, and, uh, in the, in the Costa Rican phrase, he offered us a pure life, the re vida. So that really, I think, transformed the idea of university. But more important than that, Robin, I think, is the fact that increasingly employers or those who are in a position to give jobs found the idea of a full fledged degree in peace studies with particular specializations as you go along, intriguing. And they felt that people who had been able to acquire that degree were really creative, adaptable human beings who could move into another setting, which frankly was very different from the university I went to or the generation I grew up in. I'm sure if there had been degrees in peace studies in the late seventies when I was at university, I'm not sure it would've made me particularly employable. People still preferred the traditional humanities or engineering or medicine or what have you. But now we've come to a point, and I'm very happy about this in our world, where the intrinsic worth of the individual is not measured by the marks, the trio he gets in an exam, but the sheer willingness of that person to dare an unconventional or unlikely discipline.

Dr. Robin Stern: Oh, I wish that so many people will hear this because yes, that is, that is the most important.

Ramu Damodaran: Absolutely.

Dr. Robin Stern: I know that, um, people listening, uh, and those of us who believe, believe in, um, the humanities and believe in the work that people do, not only in their own life, but to work with other people and establish a, a baseline of, um, comfort and safety and peace. Uh, will love, will love listening to the rest of this. And so how does the University of Peace work to, uh, to foster peace globally? Right now?

Ramu Damodaran: I would really say one graduate at a time. One student has at a time, one faculty member at a time, because I think what the University for Peace has vividly, and in a sense, amply demonstrated, is that you don't look at universities as cohorts of classes saying, these 30 people are flying flag. You go right, the individual and see how she or acquired to make a difference. How has it enhanced a worldview? How has it possibly changed the worldview and how has it, in a sense been true to both the reputation and legacy of university, but even more important, the reputation and legacy of the United Nations, which blessed me.

Dr. Robin Stern: I love the idea of peace being a practice one person at a time, one relationship, one conversation, um, one report at a time that, because it does put it directly into the hands of every single person.

Ramu Damodaran: Absolutely, yes.

Dr. Robin Stern: Now, I'd like to shift a little bit just to the, the work that I've done in gaslighting, and I know we've talked just a bit about it. So I'm very, very curious and very interested to hear your thoughts as a thought leader, as an historian, as a diplomat, how do you see the concept of gaslighting showing up on the world stage in the behavior, particularly in the behaviors of countries? Like, are there, I remember once having a conversation with you that I thought was fascinating where you were saying, you know, there are countries that are little who, uh, behave like there gaslighting, other countries. Can, can we go there?

Ramu Damodaran: Yes, absolutely. I think one of the things that the United Nations teaches us, and the more you go back into its history and ethos that becomes even more evident is that both the organization itself and the premise on which it was founded, really, again, rest on the individual. If you go to the charter of the United Nations, there's a great deal that is said about governments interacting with each other, the mechanisms for that interaction, United Nations General Assembly, the Security Council, the economic and social Council, and so on. But lurking in all of that is the one phrase which defines what the United Nations was set up to be, and that is the dignity and worth of the human person.

Ramu Damodaran: And what a bridges or even destroys that sense of dignity and worth. It is precisely what you, Robin, have so eloquently in your papers, in your studies, in your courses defined as gaslighting, the fact that people individually, as much as the social groups they constitute, be it communities, albeit nations, begin to feel personally responsible for their dispossession, the fact that they feel that they are to blame for being inadequately fed, inadequately educated, inadequately, remunerated from the work they do, they don't see this as a global or national social injustice. They are persuaded because of the rhetoric around them that somehow they are at fault.

Ramu Damodaran: And without going too deep into this, because it is a very treacherous area in many respects, I think that until the United Nations came into being, the one anchor most individuals had was their faith. The institutions where they prayed or owed allegiance or chose not to pray or not to have allegiance. But even these faiths, if you think about it, began to, in a sense, premise themselves on a sense of redemption, of guilt. In other words, if you redeem the guilt that you have been guilty of, then you can look forward to an afterlife. And each faith has its own definition of what that afterlife is. The reason I bring that in is because when the United Nations was established, there was in a sense a new non-religious, non-denominational altar to which the nations of the world came and congregated and in which they reposed faith and which in turn, reposed faith in them.

Ramu Damodaran: And faith, it's a very important word because faith stems out of not necessarily conviction, because faith is full of uncertainties. But when you come to the real crux, you realize that the faith you are investing in another entity, in this case the United Nations, is really faith. You are investing in yourself, in your capacity as a human being, as a member of a community to help realize the global objectives for which that organization has been set up. And yes, to draw from it, the strength and draw from it the rationale of your own wellbeing and happiness. And so when we come to, again, looking at the term gaslighting, I think the United Nations was a conscious assertion of the fact that no individual would allow her dignity or worth to be abridged or compromised because of a sense of inadequacy or a sense of underachievement, which is only nurtured and pushed further by those who have selfish interest to do so.

Dr. Robin Stern: So beautifully said, but tell me more, tell me more. How does the, how does the individual has it work for the individual in the context of, you know, I'm a person, I live in a city, I live in a town, I live in a country, and I see things going on around me. And without becoming, without getting too much into politics, because that's not our job here, or that's not, that's not what we want to do. Um, here we're really talking to people about their dignity and how it's on the line all the time when they're interfacing with whether it's groups or individuals who are undermining and, and, um, not wanting to accept responsibility, deflect responsibility, or just outright lying to them. Um, how does it work for the individual? What are they to do in the countries that when they see gaslighting going on writ large?

Ramu Damodaran: I was very moved by your choice of phrases there, Robin, because it brought to mind one of the earliest scriptures in my country, India, one of the earliest written affirmations of the social order. It wasn't necessarily religious, but I think it was extremely profound and very simply translated, goes to use again, your metaphors. Every individual is born to serve a family. Every family is constituted to serve the community. Every community is formed to serve the nation. Every nation is formed to serve the world, and the world is constituted to serve the individual. So you have that full circle coming in exactly as you mentioned it. And then you realize that it's not one way. And again, you do not diminish yourself by saying that you must constantly contribute to the world, to your country, to your society, to your community, but expect nothing in return.

Ramu Damodaran: Yes, you do expect something in return. At the very least, you expect a cessation of the gaslighting, which makes you feel guilty for something that you had no role or could be of, of being complicit. But at the most obvious, it also means that you channel the good that you are doing for people around you and expect that good to be reinvested in you in turn. So it of a phrase that the United Nations really brought to being human rights, people had not really used that idea before. It was sectoral communities or nations had minorities, and there was an idea of protecting the minorities. All they had economic segregation. So making sure people who were impoverished had a chance to have a career which brought them remuneration. But all that is only part of the story. What really matters is that there must be a, what I would call a supreme surge of righteous self-confidence. And I use that word very advisedly, righteous is not self-righteous. It righteous is a term which has been used in many of the major faiths that are prevalent in our world today because it derives from the sense of what is right and the willingness to express for yourself what is right, even or I would say particularly when that affects you as a person. So it's not all about altruism, it's also about self enhancement and even self protection.

Dr. Robin Stern: Can you, can you explain that in a, um, in a different way so that people who, uh, might not really understand what righteousness is it without the self-righteousness being brought in? Um, um, um, I'm, I'm, and I forgive me if anybody's listening and feels like I'm asking for UD to, uh, explain, um, to really take it apart and explain it in very elementary terms. But I, I think it's really important because much of the time that we are using the word righteousness, we're using the word as well, he's so self-righteous, like almost in a blaming way. And you're not at all using the term in that way. You're talking about Right, what is right in, in a large sense in human behavior.

Ramu Damodaran: Absolutely. I must confess that beyond a 0.1 tends to be more, um, etymological about these things. You begin to be semantic and look at a word and find various interpretations. So, which is really not my intention, I'm just using the, the language which, um, I'm empowered with to try and communicate a thought using the tools and mechanisms and, and phrases and words in that language. And what I would mean by, by righteous is a much more assertive version than what we commonly call, right, do the right thing. That's fair enough. Do the thing which is just, which is equitable, which is fair, which is morally sound That is the right thing, thing. But you take it a step further and express your inner righteousness because you can do the right thing anonymously. You can do it as part of a community where you are ent in the right thing being done fine.

Ramu Damodaran: Today, as we are doing this, recording is word Earth day, April the 22nd. It's a day when communities around the world come evening will switch their lights off for one hour to conserve energy and to affirm the fact that we are living in fairly fragile times. That is the right thing. But righteous takes that a step further. It means that I get outta my home, go to my neighbor's home, bring the doorbell and say, I don't want to intrude, but could you join us in this global endeavor? Could you switch your light off one hour? So right is intrinsically within us, righteous is an affirmation which we extend to the world outside.

Dr. Robin Stern: Yeah. And so when you say to some, to a friend, oh, he's a righteous man, you are talking about witnessing someone who is living into those righteous moments for themselves. And

Ramu Damodaran: That's very well put. Absolutely. Absolutely. And I think the perfect example I can think of is, um, my own national heritage, Maha Ma Gandhi, he, he did the right thing, but he also made the right thing righteous and there thereby common property for the world and its citizens to embrace if they chose to.

Dr. Robin Stern: Yeah. And so I, you know, I, I've spent a lot of my professional life thinking about how people have allowed because of influences external to them, um, on an individual level or on a small group level, because that's been my lane. I haven't been in the, the global sphere until more recently. And have, they've allowed someone to take from them that feeling of, um, goodness and take from them that feeling that they are doing the right thing, that they know what there is to that, that they know the right thing to do. And to me, that is a devastating consequence of gaslighting. Not only, um, help unstable, uh, uh, not only taking someone unstable. It didn't happen or, you know, it didn't happen like that, or no, I didn't do that or I wasn't there. But as gaslighting proceeds and people become more accommodating to the gaslight control and reality bending and reality twisting, they're giving up pieces of themselves and they're unable then to even act on whatever righteousness they might've felt or whatever, right.

Dr. Robin Stern: They felt, because they don't even trust themselves anymore. And I think that that's a devastating effect of gaslighting where people may in fact even turn away from righteous pursuits 'cause they can't trust themselves anymore. And I, and I wonder whether on a global stage, and I know I'm kind of wandering a little bit, but I think it's fine for our, between us, I know for sure between us it's fine. And, and for our listeners, I hope as well, um, on a global stage, I wonder if there are ways that that, um, leaders or that, uh, people in charge of different groups communicate such that there's a manipulation going on, um, that leaves other people feeling exactly like you were talking about, you know, with without dignity feeling like it's their fault, um, and being unable to act in proactive social ways because they're stripped of all of it, and basically fighting for their, fighting for the right to be good enough for the people who are gaslighting them or good enough to live in the world around them.

Ramu Damodaran: Well, not surprisingly, that's extremely eloquently put. I I would only say that it even goes beyond the, the sense of fault. Because when you speak about gaslighting implying that a person who is quote unquote gas lit feels that it is her fault that things should have come to this past. And that's absolutely true. But in the context of United Nations, what I think was even more sinister was the world in 1945 when there was no sense that the condition that people had, the lack of dignity and worth was fault. It was not at all a model equivalent, it was just the way things are. So in other words, a country, the size of India at that time could be held enthralled by a relatively small country, two continents away, the United Kingdom. And a majority of people in India did not see it as retribution to something they had done wrong.

Ramu Damodaran: But just the way the world is fashioned, in other words, you accept it just as you and I accept, we want to go out on a picnic and suddenly there's rain and thunderstorms, we accept it, it's not our fault. So we equate it. That is what is even more frightening. And that is what I'm most proud of the United Nations having been able to circumvent, because think of it, Robin, when the United Nations started in 1945, we had 51 members, 51 countries had joined. Today, 80 years later, we have a hundred ninety three one nine three members. So clearly there was something like 140 countries who were not in a position to regard themselves as sovereign independent states at that time. And that extends the metaphor that you have used for gaslighting in many cases within those countries, there was that sense of fault and of retribution, minorities in countries this week, for instance, if you go to the United Nations, you'll see so many people there dressed in what we would call national costumes because the permanent forum for indigenous people is having its session this week, the United Nations in 1945, in 1945 was not seen as a custodian of the rights of indigenous people, even though virtually every country in the world had its share of an indigenous population.

Ramu Damodaran: But because of thinking and extending, if you will, the arc of righteousness, to go back to our earlier phrase, we came to a situation where we realized that gaslighting has two sinister effects. One is persuading people that what has gone wrong is their fault and they've only themselves to blame. But the second is persuading people that their power is to act. They must accept everything that is placed before them as manifests destiny. And that is arguably possibly even more terrifying.

Dr. Robin Stern: How do people do that? Like, what is the communication that, um, that is given, or can you even think of an example? I mean, I feel like that is so true, so many places, but I wonder if you have a particular example of a people who were told they were powerless to act.

Ramu Damodaran: The one instance I could think of which, um, I I, because it was very much a part of my career at the United Nations, I began my United Nations career working on what was then affected colony and is now proudly independent country. Namibia Namibia, which is in, uh, southwestern Africa, as you know, was under the control of the apartheid government in South Africa. So it had no international persona, it had no way of reaching the outside world, except through the government, which had put it really in shackles. But, but when that happened, what we realized was that there was element of the Namibian Society, which created an armed liberation movement known as the Southwest African People's Organization, swapo, but the rest of the country was really completely, I wouldn't say indifferent, but completely resigned to what fate had rocked. And that, I think is the, what the practical example I would give of the sinister effect of gaslighting, because it did not persuade them that they had done wrong and therefore had to endure captivity. It it persuaded them that their cap captivity was the order of things as they should be, and make the best of it, enjoy life as best as you can, but don't have national, don't have political, don't have social, don't have human aspirations,

Dr. Robin Stern: Right. That this is the way things are supposed to be. Right. And I was thinking, talking, of course, my, my professional lane, if you will, is couples and, and individuals and thinking about how true that is for many gaslight gaslight teas or behaviors of gaslighting and relationship where you are just left to go, this is the way it is. Like, what's wrong with you? Can't you just get with the program? You don't just accept that this is, this is the way life is supposed to be,

Ramu Damodaran: Right.

Dr. Robin Stern: And don't have a voice. And certainly when I think about the woman's movement, and, and that was certainly true for women for so many years, like, no, what do you mean vote? You know, what do you mean you should write a book? Like, that's not the way the world works.

Ramu Damodaran: No,

Dr. Robin Stern: In fact, I just ordered a book, um, that I can't wait to read called Jane Austen's Bookshelf, which, uh, you know, she's obviously for many people who, um, have read sense and sensibility and pride and prejudice. I mean, she is the brilliant and beautiful author of all those books. And so I don't know that, um, what I'll find, but I have heard that it's a tell all about how her books really were the first books that help women to understand that this was not the way that they needed to, that they did not need to be subservient, that they not did not need to, to put up with bad behavior. And, and, um, so I'll see, I'll report back to you. I'll let you know how really looking forward to reading that, just as a little tangent. So one of the things that I think, um, I'd love for you to, to talk about a bit is what can the United Nations do? What can, um, countries do administrations do to safeguard against gaslighting?

Ramu Damodaran: I would imagine as in, as in many issues with which, which the United Nations deals, it's really a composite of three distinct elements, what, which the United Nations has not historically been directly associated with, but over the years has begun to take a role. And in the context of what we are discussing now, has even more of a responsibility, I feel, to take a role. The first is education. The United Nations has always stayed a little clear of education because that is within the domestic realm, countries drop their educational SBI curriculum even within countries as the United States, that there are differences between each of the 50 states that constitute the union. But I think the United Nations has to have not really a, a code of compass of moral education, but a education which inspires self confidence and self-assertion. So in other words, don't place the responsibility on, on the individual to conform to what society does, but place upon the individual the responsibility to show society what can be which would benefit all.

Ramu Damodaran: So that would be the, the first element. The second I think, is increasing the role and acknowledging the role of what we call civil society, non-government organizations, academic institutions, and then create really safe havens for the vulnerable of any kind. Yes, the gas lift and the gas light is, but also people who are at the margins of society, purely because of adverse economic situations which affect the nation around them and not just their lives, but then in pet their lives. And then see the way where civil society can augment the efforts of government to be able to, to remedy that.

Ramu Damodaran: And third, in a really, in a future sense, devise a way that the people of the world can have a greater presence of the United Nations. Right now, the United Nations is a very vibrant, very effective, very potent collection of governments. As I mentioned, we have 193 governments that constituted, but go beyond governments to people, whether it is parliament or legislatures or just created individuals, bring that spark of individual talent, skill and capacity to weigh in on that dignity and worth of the human person and bring that in. We have advantages in the year 2025 that were not foreseen in 1945, things like ai, the technological boom, all that could come in. You don't have to physically congregate in New York City to discuss ideas. We can talk, as you and I are talking now, and we can, uh, amplify that across the planet. But really the United Nations, if it is to help the victims of gaslighting, however you choose to define it or whatever scope, then the United Nations must be a forum for the Gaslight is as much as the countries to which they belong.

Dr. Robin Stern: So beautifully said, and, and I love that you brought in technology. I was gonna ask you about that. How has, um, how has the digital age changed? What, what we think of in terms of peacemaking? Can you speak to that a bit?

Ramu Damodaran: It's changed what we, in terms of peacekeeping, because again, to go back to the, to the individual, it has personified the stories of war, of conflict, of devastation. Earlier you saw headlines in newspapers, you saw an occasional picture of people fleeing a nation that had become a battlefield, but you were not able to really focus on that one child, that one woman whose entire life had been shattered within the space of the 30 seconds. It took a bomb to ignite. In our neighborhood, technology has made the remote immediate, and in the process, it has also allowed those who are affected by it in terms of what it does to their, to their capacity to think, to act, to feel it has also given them a chance to be part of the solution. And this happens in so many ways. It happens in the course of national politics, the way people vote when it is tempered by the idea of peacemaking and conflict. But equally, I think it really narrows down humanity into a composite and a plane, which is not overly preoccupied by differences in language or complexion or history, but just the enormous beauty of the present matched by the enormous uncertainty of the future.

Dr. Robin Stern: I love that. Thank you. Thank you so much. You know, I was, you're making me think about something I've been writing about, uh, recently, which is the moral distress that people are living. The, um, and I, I wonder if we can go there for a few minutes. I just, I've never been through a period professionally where, uh, as I'm opening a meeting, um, or as I'm teaching class, I'm thinking, I'm thinking about the fact that everyone is not okay. Like just getting up to stand standing. Well, I guess when the, I shouldn't say I've never been in that time because COVID was that time too where we at the Yale Center for Emotional Intelligence created an entire course to meet people where they were, because they were not okay. And when they were standing up in front of their classrooms or leading their schools or their districts, and this is, I mean, COVID is hardly in the rear view mirror.

Dr. Robin Stern: People are still struggling with it, but this is a no, a completely different wave of, um, people, really many people living, um, feeling what was coined as a result of the military service, more, uh, moral injury, moral distress, moral stress, and living against their values or living in places where they're watching things go on that are not aligned with their values, whether it's gaslighting or other kinds of bullying and taunting and harassment and, and humiliation, all kinds of ways of stripping people of their dignity or racism and ableism and all of the very large, um, chunks of bullying. And I, when people say, how are you? I, I, I don't even know how to answer that question. No, I mean, right now I'm joyful interacting with you. I'm delighted to have you here, and I feel thoughtful and I can name a bunch of other feelings and psychological states I'm experiencing right now, but how am I in the world right now? I experienced distress daily thinking about what's going on, what are your thoughts about now and how we, what is the role that that thought leaders can play and that the un can play at this time of moral distress?

Ramu Damodaran: Thought leaders, Robin, I would say, have a responsibility to try and shift the agenda. And that's not always easy because the agenda that they're trying to shift from is, is legitimate people, maybe unhappy people? People may be insecure for very valid reasons, and no one can judge and say, that is not a worthwhile reason or not, but in the process, I think it's important to try and see the good in our common humanity, to draw strength from that. And frankly, not just draw strength, but to try and see where you have the power to enhance that strength. And that again, brings in both the question of the, the, the enormous terrain that technology gives us, and equally, the enormous terrain that self-expression gives us in so many forms, like, like the one that we are both on at the moment, and the fact that each one of us has the right and the ability to be able to persuade or influence another.

Ramu Damodaran: What we do not have is the right to be aggrieved or hurt or feel deprived. If we do not manage to persuade the other, our point of view is a point of view. We consider it the right point of view, but that is not going to be a uniform point of view across the, across the platform. The larger question about unhappiness and a sense of desolation, I think without appearing, without wanting to appear cynical, I think this has happened at so many points in history. And as you were good enough to say, it is really invidious to talk about particular instances or particular nations, but any community or nation that you picture has been through a situation where all seemed lost or irretrievable and yet has bounced back not only because of its own strength of and its own accord, but the joy and the power extended by people and communities around them. And I hope that we can sustain that sense just as we realize today that thanks to technology so much that is once not possible is possible, but equally, so much of what is possible is being kept aside to the not possible because we simply do not want to do it because of the dangers that it commands. So it's really a time for the human mind, the human spirit, as much as the human heart to play.

Dr. Robin Stern: I, I don't even know how to respond. I mean, that was just so profound and important and, and especially, um, especially helpful in just making the bridge to my last question to you, which is what are your hopes for the next generation of thought leaders of international, um, uh, diplomacy, people pursuing international diplomacy and peacemakers for the next generation?

Ramu Damodaran: My hope Robin is gonna be a rather odd one, which is go back to the child you were. And the reason I say that is because when we, if we're able to picture ourselves, whether we were three or four, we have that degree of recollection, or when we see our own nieces and nephews or friends, children who are three and four and see them, you find this entire equation, if you will, between the enormous capacity to do everything of which you are capable. Walk those extra 100 feet, lift those extra 10 pounds. You are asserting yourself at every point, and yet you are watching out for those around you. You want them protected. You want them in the same safe space that you find yourself. And I think if we all had that as our mantra, if you will, or a philosophy that don't be tempered or molded by the world you grew up in, go back and find solace in the world that was once yours and the you that once were, because I think essentially the truths are the same.

Dr. Robin Stern: Well, thank you for that. Absolutely. Gorgeous wrap up. Absolutely beautiful. And what I love most was, uh, when I asked you the question and you be began to talk about finding that you, um, deep inside the you, you once were, you smiled just so broadly and it was beautiful. And

Ramu Damodaran: So thank you Robin.

Dr. Robin Stern: I really appreciate, um, that answer and, and that blessing and and invitation for everyone listening. Thank you everyone for joining us. Um, I'm a little speechless. Rama was definitely a hero of mine and a, uh, mentor and I am so really so thrilled to have you with us. And I hope it's been as meaningful for you as it has been for me. And I hope there are many takeaways and that you will, uh, really be thinking about the child you were before the world became too much for you.

Ramu Damodaran: Thank you so much, Robin.

Dr. Robin Stern: Thanks for joining me for today's episode. I hope you found it helpful and meaningful. If you want to listen to other episodes of the Gaslight Effect podcast, you can find them at robinstern.com or wherever you listen to podcasts. And please leave a rating and a review. I also invite you to follow me on Facebook, LinkedIn, Instagram, and Twitter. This podcast is produced by Mel Yellen, Mike Lens, and me. All of my work is supported by Susan Pettit Marcus Estevez and Omaginarium, also by Sally McCartan and Jackie Daniels. I'm so grateful to have many people supporting me and especially grateful for all of you, my listeners.