Is there any other marketing that is going along with these posts? e.g. posting on Slack channels, Facebook groups, or the like? I think that could potentially multiply the benefits and help get the word out even more.
I tend to link the posts in the main Facebook groups and the EA Anywhere Slack channel, but nothing too lavish—it takes a nontrivial amount of time to do this, and I don’t have a lot of spare bandwidth.
I see the Mental Health Navigator is mentioned under the Mental Health section, but I suggest that the Coaching session also have a reference to it at the top mentioning that there are a bunch of coaches on that resource as well, in the same Providers list.
As in there are life/other types of coaches on MHN?
More strongly, I don’t think it makes sense to only list a few coaches explicitly by name in this post. There are a ton of coaches who specifically target EAs on the Mental health Navigator, virtually all (if not all) of whom meet all the criteria. The MHN is intended to be the single source of truth list and provides useful features like filtering. It also only lists providers who have some review/recommendation (or if they’ve listed themselves, that has been reviewed by a gatekeeper at the Mental Health Navigator). To have another list here could only ever amount to a less complete and as such potentially confusing or less valuable list. I myself am a leadership coach to EAs and would love to be added to this list, but, I also know of a couple dozen other coaches who would also love to get more visibility, many of whom will never discover this post. I’d rather help out the entire coaching community, and also provide a more valuable interface to EAs seeking coaches, which helps out the entire EA community.
I’m not sure how I feel here. The coaches section has definitely got a bit bloated. I could do some rotation to highlight individuals, but that sounds quite a pain in the butt. I’m also a little wary of deferring to a single other resource, since I’m generally worried about EA groupthink that comes from deferred epistemics. Maybe a reasonable approach would be to list coaches only if they fit the opt-in criterion and for some (non-egregious) reason (e.g. that they don’t deal with mental health) aren’t listed on MHN?
Happy to be persuaded there’s a better approach, though. If you do think that’s reasonable, feel free to reach out to any coaches who that would include, or just link me to their websites (including you, though it sounds like you’re on there?).
Nitpick: You use “or” a couple of times in your criteria. I believe in both cases the “or” conjoins only the bullet with the single adjacent bullet. But just to make it a tiny bit clearer what two things are conjoined by “or”, you could use indenting, or include both things in the same line item.
The MHN has a pretty broad inclusion, so dealing explicitly with mental health isn’t a requirement. There’s a bunch of coaches there.
I second that it doesn’t make sense to name a few coaches here. I’d be happy with adding all the coaching focusing on EAs (probably a dozen to a few dozen?) or pointing to a third party source like MHN that already has extensive lists.
As in there are life/other types of coaches on MHN?
Yeah, there are lots of coaches and therapists on MHN. The idea is that people have a single list that is known and trusted, and also provides a useful interface for people to be able to find a coach/therapist that is right for them. This is the main purpose of the providers page. There is some benefit to having the central resource including reducing the proliferation of separate lists, which can be confusing to people.
These coaches aren’t generally licensed mental health professionals (certainly some exceptions), but seeing an effective coach is certainly something that can greatly support mental health, and I think that was at least part of the reasoning of listing them there.
I’m not sure how I feel here. The coaches section has definitely got a bit bloated. I could do some rotation to highlight individuals, but that sounds quite a pain in the butt. I’m also a little wary of deferring to a single other resource, since I’m generally worried about EA groupthink that comes from deferred epistemics. Maybe a reasonable approach would be to list coaches only if they fit the opt-in criterion and for some (non-egregious) reason (e.g. that they don’t deal with mental health) aren’t listed on MHN?
I agree that rotation isn’t practical. I hear what you’re saying about being worried about deferred epistemics. My perspective is that MHN providers page is actually worth deferring to for this because it earns trust by providing a general platform where many people can be listed, (it wouldn’t be deferring to a shorter list of people getting outsized attention). The intention is that it gives someone a better chance at figuring out what provider is right for them based on their own analysis rather than other more arbitrary methods. It would be supportive of a process of evaluating multiple providers instead of just hearing of one provider and going with that person. Also it includes a bunch more things like factual information about the coaches that help with matching, and has recommendations from others who have gotten services (which, in aggregate, provide meaningful data). Would love to get your thoughts on this.
All that said, I think it would be reasonable to list coaches who contact you and fit the opt-in criteria and who aren’t on MHN.
Thanks for the support :)
I tend to link the posts in the main Facebook groups and the EA Anywhere Slack channel, but nothing too lavish—it takes a nontrivial amount of time to do this, and I don’t have a lot of spare bandwidth.
As in there are life/other types of coaches on MHN?
I’m not sure how I feel here. The coaches section has definitely got a bit bloated. I could do some rotation to highlight individuals, but that sounds quite a pain in the butt. I’m also a little wary of deferring to a single other resource, since I’m generally worried about EA groupthink that comes from deferred epistemics. Maybe a reasonable approach would be to list coaches only if they fit the opt-in criterion and for some (non-egregious) reason (e.g. that they don’t deal with mental health) aren’t listed on MHN?
Happy to be persuaded there’s a better approach, though. If you do think that’s reasonable, feel free to reach out to any coaches who that would include, or just link me to their websites (including you, though it sounds like you’re on there?).
Good suggestion, thanks.
The MHN has a pretty broad inclusion, so dealing explicitly with mental health isn’t a requirement. There’s a bunch of coaches there.
I second that it doesn’t make sense to name a few coaches here. I’d be happy with adding all the coaching focusing on EAs (probably a dozen to a few dozen?) or pointing to a third party source like MHN that already has extensive lists.
Yeah, there are lots of coaches and therapists on MHN. The idea is that people have a single list that is known and trusted, and also provides a useful interface for people to be able to find a coach/therapist that is right for them. This is the main purpose of the providers page. There is some benefit to having the central resource including reducing the proliferation of separate lists, which can be confusing to people.
These coaches aren’t generally licensed mental health professionals (certainly some exceptions), but seeing an effective coach is certainly something that can greatly support mental health, and I think that was at least part of the reasoning of listing them there.
I agree that rotation isn’t practical. I hear what you’re saying about being worried about deferred epistemics. My perspective is that MHN providers page is actually worth deferring to for this because it earns trust by providing a general platform where many people can be listed, (it wouldn’t be deferring to a shorter list of people getting outsized attention). The intention is that it gives someone a better chance at figuring out what provider is right for them based on their own analysis rather than other more arbitrary methods. It would be supportive of a process of evaluating multiple providers instead of just hearing of one provider and going with that person. Also it includes a bunch more things like factual information about the coaches that help with matching, and has recommendations from others who have gotten services (which, in aggregate, provide meaningful data). Would love to get your thoughts on this.
All that said, I think it would be reasonable to list coaches who contact you and fit the opt-in criteria and who aren’t on MHN.