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
144
Grow your Mental Resilience to Grow your Impact HERE - Introducing Effective Peer Support
Inga
· · 2m read
14
14
113
High-Impact Psychology (HIPsy): Piloting a Global Network
Inga
· · 6m read
5
5
41
Pilot Results: High-Impact Psychology/ Mental Health (HIPsy)
Inga
· · 9m read
4
4
View more
Curated and popular this week
Paul Present
 ·  · 28m read
 · 
Note: I am not a malaria expert. This is my best-faith attempt at answering a question that was bothering me, but this field is a large and complex field, and I’ve almost certainly misunderstood something somewhere along the way. Summary While the world made incredible progress in reducing malaria cases from 2000 to 2015, the past 10 years have seen malaria cases stop declining and start rising. I investigated potential reasons behind this increase through reading the existing literature and looking at publicly available data, and I identified three key factors explaining the rise: 1. Population Growth: Africa's population has increased by approximately 75% since 2000. This alone explains most of the increase in absolute case numbers, while cases per capita have remained relatively flat since 2015. 2. Stagnant Funding: After rapid growth starting in 2000, funding for malaria prevention plateaued around 2010. 3. Insecticide Resistance: Mosquitoes have become increasingly resistant to the insecticides used in bednets over the past 20 years. This has made older models of bednets less effective, although they still have some effect. Newer models of bednets developed in response to insecticide resistance are more effective but still not widely deployed.  I very crudely estimate that without any of these factors, there would be 55% fewer malaria cases in the world than what we see today. I think all three of these factors are roughly equally important in explaining the difference.  Alternative explanations like removal of PFAS, climate change, or invasive mosquito species don't appear to be major contributors.  Overall this investigation made me more convinced that bednets are an effective global health intervention.  Introduction In 2015, malaria rates were down, and EAs were celebrating. Giving What We Can posted this incredible gif showing the decrease in malaria cases across Africa since 2000: Giving What We Can said that > The reduction in malaria has be
Rory Fenton
 ·  · 6m read
 · 
Cross-posted from my blog. Contrary to my carefully crafted brand as a weak nerd, I go to a local CrossFit gym a few times a week. Every year, the gym raises funds for a scholarship for teens from lower-income families to attend their summer camp program. I don’t know how many Crossfit-interested low-income teens there are in my small town, but I’ll guess there are perhaps 2 of them who would benefit from the scholarship. After all, CrossFit is pretty niche, and the town is small. Helping youngsters get swole in the Pacific Northwest is not exactly as cost-effective as preventing malaria in Malawi. But I notice I feel drawn to supporting the scholarship anyway. Every time it pops in my head I think, “My money could fully solve this problem”. The camp only costs a few hundred dollars per kid and if there are just 2 kids who need support, I could give $500 and there would no longer be teenagers in my town who want to go to a CrossFit summer camp but can’t. Thanks to me, the hero, this problem would be entirely solved. 100%. That is not how most nonprofit work feels to me. You are only ever making small dents in important problems I want to work on big problems. Global poverty. Malaria. Everyone not suddenly dying. But if I’m honest, what I really want is to solve those problems. Me, personally, solve them. This is a continued source of frustration and sadness because I absolutely cannot solve those problems. Consider what else my $500 CrossFit scholarship might do: * I want to save lives, and USAID suddenly stops giving $7 billion a year to PEPFAR. So I give $500 to the Rapid Response Fund. My donation solves 0.000001% of the problem and I feel like I have failed. * I want to solve climate change, and getting to net zero will require stopping or removing emissions of 1,500 billion tons of carbon dioxide. I give $500 to a policy nonprofit that reduces emissions, in expectation, by 50 tons. My donation solves 0.000000003% of the problem and I feel like I have f
LewisBollard
 ·  · 8m read
 · 
> How the dismal science can help us end the dismal treatment of farm animals By Martin Gould ---------------------------------------- Note: This post was crossposted from the Open Philanthropy Farm Animal Welfare Research Newsletter by the Forum team, with the author's permission. The author may not see or respond to comments on this post. ---------------------------------------- This year we’ll be sharing a few notes from my colleagues on their areas of expertise. The first is from Martin. I’ll be back next month. - Lewis In 2024, Denmark announced plans to introduce the world’s first carbon tax on cow, sheep, and pig farming. Climate advocates celebrated, but animal advocates should be much more cautious. When Denmark’s Aarhus municipality tested a similar tax in 2022, beef purchases dropped by 40% while demand for chicken and pork increased. Beef is the most emissions-intensive meat, so carbon taxes hit it hardest — and Denmark’s policies don’t even cover chicken or fish. When the price of beef rises, consumers mostly shift to other meats like chicken. And replacing beef with chicken means more animals suffer in worse conditions — about 190 chickens are needed to match the meat from one cow, and chickens are raised in much worse conditions. It may be possible to design carbon taxes which avoid this outcome; a recent paper argues that a broad carbon tax would reduce all meat production (although it omits impacts on egg or dairy production). But with cows ten times more emissions-intensive than chicken per kilogram of meat, other governments may follow Denmark’s lead — focusing taxes on the highest emitters while ignoring the welfare implications. Beef is easily the most emissions-intensive meat, but also requires the fewest animals for a given amount. The graph shows climate emissions per tonne of meat on the right-hand side, and the number of animals needed to produce a kilogram of meat on the left. The fish “lives lost” number varies significantly by
Recent opportunities in Community
59
Get Paid $12 to Procrastinate Less
John Salter
· · 4m read
0
0
6
12 Weeks to Feel Better & Do More Good
2 authors
· · 3m read
0
0
7
EAGxNordics in Norway: apply now
Amalie Farestvedt 🔸
· · 3m read
0
0
View more