Effective Altruism Forum
EA Forum

Hide table of contents
by Inga, John Drummond
3 min read 8

32

CommunityGlobal health & developmentOpportunities to take actionAnnouncements and updatesCoachingCollections and resourcesEffective Altruism CoachingEffective altruism lifestyleMental health (cause area)Organization updatesPsychotherapySelf-care and wellbeing in the effective altruism communityRethink Wellbeing
Frontpage

We [at Rethink Wellbeing] offer different versions of our mental wellbeing program for ambitious altruists starting now! Apply until July 12th, via this form in ~15 min. You can choose between: 

  • a 1:1 buddy or peer-support group, meeting with high or low-frequency
  • Cognitive Behavioural Methods (CBT-inspired: managing thoughts, emotions, and behaviours) or Inner-Parts-Work (IFS-inspired: managing inner conflict)

We have some exciting news! We have 3 new program offerings coming up to help you to:

  • practice evidence-based tools for self-management together with like-minded ambitious altruists
  • deal with blockers and stressors such as low concentration, motivation, mood, and self-esteem
  • learn about and potentially improve your mental wellbeing, your adaptability, and resilience, as well as your productivity

People who are well do good better. In a rapidly evolving world where adaptability and innovation are paramount, compromised cognitive function due to mental health issues can severely limit one’s own and one's team's performance and potential [e.g., 1, 2, 3]. 

Explore the options below to find the ones that suit you best and apply here. No worries if you can’t decide, you can apply to all at once and let us assign you.  Groups start in June and July, maybe also in August.


Which methods are for you?

CBT-inspired: Cognitive Behavioral Treatment: 

  1. Focused on changing behaviours, emotions, and thinking in the present moment
  2. Ideal for those who aim to improve their daily coping strategies and self-management skills
  3. Available as buddy and support group version, with standard and minimum guidance intensity (see below)

 

IFS-inspired: Internal Family Systems:  

  1. Focused on working with inner parts, that have evolved in the past, improving internal dialogue, internal conflict, relationship to self
  2. Ideal for those seeking to potentially resolve deeper seated issues
  3. Only available as support group version with standard guidance intensity at the moment (see below) 

 

Which formats are for you?

Standard guidance group:

  1. Receive online guidance from 1 facilitator and RW psychologist
  2. Get matched support group of 4-6 people and 1 facilitator
  3. Join 9 sessions over 16 weeks (Week 1-6, 8, 12, 16)
  4. Ideal for those who appreciate peer bonding, connection and shared problem-solving in small groups of like-minded people

 

Standard guidance buddy:

  1. Receive online guidance from 1 facilitator and RW psychologist
  2. Get paired with a buddy for weekly check-ins for Week 2-7, 10, 14 week.
  3. Join 3 sessions (Week 1, 8, 16) with 25 participants for onboarding, interim check-in, and offboarding
  4. Ideal for those who enjoy 1:1 interactions, who e.g. are afraid of group settings or who prefer to have a specific accountability and problem-solving buddy to practice together

 

Minimum guidance:

  1. Join 3 sessions (Week 1, 8, 16) with 25 participants for onboarding, interim check-in, and offboarding
  2. Receive online guidance on demand from 1 facilitator and RW psychologist
  3. Ideal for individuals who prefer learning on their own, want to learn on their own schedule with least possible time investment, who know they can keep themselves accountable on their own

You can learn more about how our overall program (version: CBT standard guidance group) works in this former EA forum post.

This is our first related demo video of the program. Check it out!

 

Apply Now

  1. Individuals: Secure your spot in our upcoming cohort and embark on a journey towards better mental health and productivity. Spaces are limited, so don't delay
  2. Organizations: Invest in your team's wellbeing. Express interest to offer our program to your members or employees. 80,000 Hours e.g., covers the program for their employees already

Join us at Rethink Wellbeing and experience the benefits of evidence-based mental wellbeing programs tailored to ambitiously altruistic individuals.

Apply here today in ~15 minutes and start your path to mental wellbeing, resilience, and productivity!

Accessibility and Cost

A multitude of time slots convenient for people on different schedules and in different time zones are available because we train facilitators all over the globe. Also, we are committed to making this program accessible, offering it at a fraction of the cost of typical mental health-related services. It is $31 per session hour ($550 overall for the full program and $300 for the minimum guidance program). If you can't afford to participate or wouldn't attend if you had to cover the costs of your attendance, you can apply for a stipend in <2 min. We offer the program for lower costs or for free using donations and grant funding we receive. Applying for a stipend doesn't affect your chances of getting accepted to the program. For those who contribute to covering the operational costs of their attendance by paying a small fee, we also offer a money-back guarantee. 

 

[1] McEwen, B. S., & Morrison, J. H. (2021). The brain on stress: vulnerability and plasticity of the prefrontal cortex over the life course. Neuron, 109(1), 46-56.

[2] Arne Beck, A. Lauren Crain, Leif I. Solberg, Jürgen Unützer, Russell E. Glasgow, Michael V. Maciosek and Robin Whitebird. The Annals of Family Medicine July 2011, 9 (4) 305-311; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.1260

[3] Goleman, D. (2020). Emotional Intelligence and Leadership Effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 105(4), 379–393.



 

32

0
0

Reactions

0
0

More posts like this

Comments8


Sorted by
New & upvoted
Click to highlight new comments since:
Sarah Weiler9
3
0

Thanks for organising this and sharing the programme here! Is there any reason you did not put the price in the description posted here? I think that this is - at least for someone like myself - a significant decision criterion for a potential applicant, and it is a bit strange/inconvenient only to learn about it after filling in the entire application form.

(For other readers: the normal price is $550 for the entire programme, and there is an option to apply for financial support within the application form)

Reply
Inga2
0
0
1

Thanks Sarah, for pointing this out. I added the section, about accessibility, to the post, but also want to strongly encourage NOT to use the price as a decision criterion because: 

  • applying for a stipend only costs you ~2min, and
  • doing so doesn't affect your chances of being chosen as a program attendee.
Reply
Charlotte Darnell6
2
0

I’m not super familiar with your work but I can imagine this is a great resource for lots of people, and I recognise that therapy or similar support can be really hard to access. I think it's was worth noting though, that I’ve really valued having my main therapy and some of my support be outside of EA.

I think this actually allows me to look more honestly at my feelings and feel more psychological safety when exploring them. I do think the shared context of EA can be really helpful (I do seek support from EA friends about things) - but just wanted to note that there are pros and cons, particularly if you’re aiming to work on “deeper seated issues” which is quite a vulnerable spot to be in.

For those considering this, it might be worth taking a minute to check in with yourself about if you’d benefit more from the shared context this provides, or you’d benefit more from being able to talk about your hard stuff with people who you’re much, much less likely to cross paths with professionally.

Reply
Inga2
0
0

Just a note on data protection and potential conflict of interest:

  • Data protection: We work with Google Workplace. We inform our participants that for some this might not represent the highest level of data security and that they are free to work with an anonymized email address as well as an alias or just their first name when interacting online during the program. Our online community can also be accessed using an alias (Telegram). The "only" people who will definitely have seen you are the other people in your 5- people support group (if you choose the standard guidance), or only your buddy (if you choose the 1:1 guidance).
  • Conflict of interest: We carefully match our participants so that none accidentally runs into their colleague, or other people they might have professional relationships with.
Reply
Julia_Wise🔸9
4
0

My experience is that it's more possible to avoid current conflicts of interest, but as people work in the same ecosystem they often have multiple interactions in different contexts over time. I'd want people to keep in mind that the person in their group now may later end up being their colleague, funder, etc. To me, this is still a reason to seriously consider mental health resources outside the community.

Reply
Inga2
0
0

Thank you, Julia, for pointing out that there might be potential future conflicts of interest. 
In our minimum guidance and buddy guidance version, this risk is very low because participants in those versions only share more personal information with one other person (their buddy) or only abstractly about applied methods in a larger online community without their real names (minimum guidance).

Reply
Dave Cortright 🔸1
0
0

Minor grammatical correction: "deeper seated" is the more apt idiom, rather than "deeper suited" 🤓

Reply
John Drummond2
0
0

Thanks Dave <3

Reply
More from Inga
45
Rethink Wellbeing’s Year 2 Update: Foster Sustainable High Performance for Ambitious Altruists
3 authors
· · 15m read
0
0
67
Applications Open: Elevate Your Mental Wellbeing with Rethink Wellbeing's CBT Program
3 authors
· · 5m read
7
7
106
Boost your Mental Resilience to Grow your Impact – Attend the CBT Program of Rethink Wellbeing
3 authors
· · 3m read
11
11
View more
Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 5m read
 · 
[Cross-posted from my Substack here] If you spend time with people trying to change the world, you’ll come to an interesting conundrum: Various advocacy groups reference previous successful social movements as to why their chosen strategy is the most important one. Yet, these groups often follow wildly different strategies from each other to achieve social change. So, which one of them is right? The answer is all of them and none of them. This is because many people use research and historical movements to justify their pre-existing beliefs about how social change happens. Simply, you can find a case study to fit most plausible theories of how social change happens. For example, the groups might say: * Repeated nonviolent disruption is the key to social change, citing the Freedom Riders from the civil rights Movement or Act Up! from the gay rights movement. * Technological progress is what drives improvements in the human condition if you consider the development of the contraceptive pill funded by Katharine McCormick. * Organising and base-building is how change happens, as inspired by Ella Baker, the NAACP or Cesar Chavez from the United Workers Movement. * Insider advocacy is the real secret of social movements – look no further than how influential the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights was in passing the Civil Rights Acts of 1960 & 1964. * Democratic participation is the backbone of social change – just look at how Ireland lifted a ban on abortion via a Citizen’s Assembly. * And so on… To paint this picture, we can see this in action below: Source: Just Stop Oil which focuses on…civil resistance and disruption Source: The Civic Power Fund which focuses on… local organising What do we take away from all this? In my mind, a few key things: 1. Many different approaches have worked in changing the world so we should be humble and not assume we are doing The Most Important Thing 2. The case studies we focus on are likely confirmation bias, where
 ·  · 2m read
 · 
I speak to many entrepreneurial people trying to do a large amount of good by starting a nonprofit organisation. I think this is often an error for four main reasons. 1. Scalability 2. Capital counterfactuals 3. Standards 4. Learning potential 5. Earning to give potential These arguments are most applicable to starting high-growth organisations, such as startups.[1] Scalability There is a lot of capital available for startups, and established mechanisms exist to continue raising funds if the ROI appears high. It seems extremely difficult to operate a nonprofit with a budget of more than $30M per year (e.g., with approximately 150 people), but this is not particularly unusual for for-profit organisations. Capital Counterfactuals I generally believe that value-aligned funders are spending their money reasonably well, while for-profit investors are spending theirs extremely poorly (on altruistic grounds). If you can redirect that funding towards high-altruism value work, you could potentially create a much larger delta between your use of funding and the counterfactual of someone else receiving those funds. You also won’t be reliant on constantly convincing donors to give you money, once you’re generating revenue. Standards Nonprofits have significantly weaker feedback mechanisms compared to for-profits. They are often difficult to evaluate and lack a natural kill function. Few people are going to complain that you provided bad service when it didn’t cost them anything. Most nonprofits are not very ambitious, despite having large moral ambitions. It’s challenging to find talented people willing to accept a substantial pay cut to work with you. For-profits are considerably more likely to create something that people actually want. Learning Potential Most people should be trying to put themselves in a better position to do useful work later on. People often report learning a great deal from working at high-growth companies, building interesting connection
 ·  · 31m read
 · 
James Özden and Sam Glover at Social Change Lab wrote a literature review on protest outcomes[1] as part of a broader investigation[2] on protest effectiveness. The report covers multiple lines of evidence and addresses many relevant questions, but does not say much about the methodological quality of the research. So that's what I'm going to do today. I reviewed the evidence on protest outcomes, focusing only on the highest-quality research, to answer two questions: 1. Do protests work? 2. Are Social Change Lab's conclusions consistent with the highest-quality evidence? Here's what I found: Do protests work? Highly likely (credence: 90%) in certain contexts, although it's unclear how well the results generalize. [More] Are Social Change Lab's conclusions consistent with the highest-quality evidence? Yes—the report's core claims are well-supported, although it overstates the strength of some of the evidence. [More] Cross-posted from my website. Introduction This article serves two purposes: First, it analyzes the evidence on protest outcomes. Second, it critically reviews the Social Change Lab literature review. Social Change Lab is not the only group that has reviewed protest effectiveness. I was able to find four literature reviews: 1. Animal Charity Evaluators (2018), Protest Intervention Report. 2. Orazani et al. (2021), Social movement strategy (nonviolent vs. violent) and the garnering of third-party support: A meta-analysis. 3. Social Change Lab – Ozden & Glover (2022), Literature Review: Protest Outcomes. 4. Shuman et al. (2024), When Are Social Protests Effective? The Animal Charity Evaluators review did not include many studies, and did not cite any natural experiments (only one had been published as of 2018). Orazani et al. (2021)[3] is a nice meta-analysis—it finds that when you show people news articles about nonviolent protests, they are more likely to express support for the protesters' cause. But what people say in a lab setting mig
Relevant opportunities
51
World Malaria Day 2025: what's new, what's not
Toby Tremlett🔹
· · 2m read
2
2
97
E2G help available
Will Kirkpatrick
· · 3m read
3
3
45
The CEA Events Team is Hiring for Three Program Lead Positions
OllieBase
· · 3m read
0
0
View more