EA Forum Bot Site
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 wellbeingRethink Wellbeing
Frontpage
Show all topics

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
Inga, Báo, carysj
· · 15m read
0
0
144
Grow your Mental Resilience to Grow your Impact HERE - Introducing Effective Peer Support
Inga
· · 2m read
14
14
106
Boost your Mental Resilience to Grow your Impact – Attend the CBT Program of Rethink Wellbeing
Edmo_Gamelin, Inga, John Drummond
· · 3m read
11
11
View more
Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 20m read
 · 
Once we expand to other star systems, we may begin a self-propagating expansion of human civilisation throughout the galaxy. However, there are existential risks potentially capable of destroying a galactic civilisation, like self-replicating machines, strange matter, and vacuum decay. Without an extremely widespread and effective governance system, the eventual creation of a galaxy-ending x-risk seems almost inevitable due to cumulative chances of initiation over time across numerous independent actors. So galactic x-risks may severely limit the total potential value that human civilisation can attain in the long-term future. The requirements for a governance system to prevent galactic x-risks are extremely demanding, and they need it needs to be in place before interstellar colonisation is initiated.  Introduction I recently came across a series of posts from nearly a decade ago, starting with a post by George Dvorsky in io9 called “12 Ways Humanity Could Destroy the Entire Solar System”. It’s a fun post discussing stellar engineering disasters, the potential dangers of warp drives and wormholes, and the delicacy of orbital dynamics.  Anders Sandberg responded to the post on his blog and assessed whether these solar system disasters represented a potential Great Filter to explain the Fermi Paradox, which they did not[1]. However, x-risks to solar system-wide civilisations were certainly possible. Charlie Stross then made a post where he suggested that some of these x-risks could destroy a galactic civilisation too, most notably griefers (von Neumann probes). The fact that it only takes one colony among many to create griefers means that the dispersion and huge population of galactic civilisations[2] may actually be a disadvantage in x-risk mitigation.  In addition to getting through this current period of high x-risk, we should aim to create a civilisation that is able to withstand x-risks for as long as possible so that as much of the value[3] of the univers
 ·  · 1m read
 · 
If you are planning on doing AI policy communications to DC policymakers, I recommend watching the full video of the Select Committee on the CCP hearing from this week.  In his introductory comments, Ranking Member Representative Krishnamoorthi played a clip of Neo fighting an army of Agent Smiths, described it as misaligned AGI fighting humanity, and then announced he was working on a bill called "The AGI Safety Act" which would require AI to be aligned to human values.  On the Republican side, Congressman Moran articulated the risks of AI automated R&D, and how dangerous it would be to let China achieve this capability. Additionally, 250 policymakers (half Republican, half Democrat) signed a letter saying they don't want the Federal government to ban state level AI regulation. The Overton window is rapidly shifting in DC, and I think people should re-evaluate what the most important messages are to communicate to policymakers. I would argue they already know "AI is a big deal." The next important question to answer is, "What should America do about it?"
 ·  · 13m read
 · 
  There is dispute among EAs--and the general public more broadly--about whether morality is objective.  So I thought I'd kick off a debate about this, and try to draw more people into reading and posting on the forum!  Here is my opening volley in the debate, and I encourage others to respond.   Unlike a lot of effective altruists and people in my segment of the internet, I am a moral realist.  I think morality is objective.  I thought I'd set out to defend this view.   Let’s first define moral realism. It’s the idea that there are some stance independent moral truths. Something is stance independent if it doesn’t depend on what anyone thinks or feels about it. So, for instance, that I have arms is stance independently true—it doesn’t depend on what anyone thinks about it. That ice cream is tasty is stance dependently true; it might be tasty to me but not to you, and a person who thinks it’s not tasty isn’t making an error. So, in short, moral realism is the idea that there are things that you should or shouldn’t do and that this fact doesn’t depend on what anyone thinks about them. So, for instance, suppose you take a baby and hit it with great force with a hammer. Moral realism says: 1. You’re doing something wrong. 2. That fact doesn’t depend on anyone’s beliefs about it. You approving of it, or the person appraising the situation approving of it, or society approving of it doesn’t determine its wrongness (of course, it might be that what makes its wrong is its effects on the baby, resulting in the baby not approving of it, but that’s different from someone’s higher-level beliefs about the act. It’s an objective fact that a particular person won a high-school debate round, even though that depended on what the judges thought). Moral realism says that some moral statements are true and this doesn’t depend on what people think about it. Now, there are only three possible ways any particular moral statement can fail to be stance independently true: 1. It’s
Relevant opportunities
40
Introducing Impact Catalyst - a high-impact nonprofit incubation program in Latin America
Verónica Suárez M.
· · 3m read
2
2
6
Head of Communications at LEEP
Tatiana K. Nesic Skuratova
· · 5m read
0
0
115
What's your experience with elitism in EA? [Survey]
Q
Yi-Yang
· · 2m read
70
70
View more