Taking a walk in nature is an escape that is good for your body, your emotions, and your brain. Watching a favorite comedy is another escape that won't complicate your life or add to your stress after the credits roll. Finally, you can cultivate healthy habits that you can practice when you feel stressed (instead of turning to unhealthy habits like bingeing on comfort food). One of our clients bought a mini trampoline and placed it in a corner of her kitchen. Because stress usually sends her to the pantry, she wanted a healthier alternative where she would be sure to see it. She is trying to be intentional about replacing her chocolate habit with the much healthier habit of bouncing lightly on her rebounder for five minutes whenever she starts to feel overwhelmed. You're strong, and powerful in your convictions, and you're honest and blunt in your communication. You're independently minded, intelligent and decisive. When you use this to your utmost ability, you become looked at as a strong, capable, and confident partner women are instantly drawn to. You're a knight in shining armour. So when you bring your natural traits to the forefront in your relationship or dating life, and assert yourself as someone who knows who he wants (and actively pursues her), this is auto-magnetism at work. It's simply harnessing who you are at your core, in order to make the person in your life feel really, really good. Accept the other person.So much of the time, we doubt ourselves, or try too hard to get the person we want, or wonder how we'll keep the attraction going. The truth is, it simply takes bringing our natural gifts and strengths to the forefront, while accepting theirs at the same time. Some women make the mistake of nagging, complaining or stonewalling (giving them the silent treatment, etc.) the man in their life as a punishment for him not giving her what she really wanted. Some men `tune' women out with work, or sports watching on TV, instead of spending time in the relationship, in order to make it better. The reality is, the more time you put in your relationship, the better it becomes. The more giving, thoughtful and mindful you are in regards to the other person, the more giving, thoughtful and mindful they will be with you. Show the person you're interest in, dating or in ia relationship with that you're mentally, emotionally and physically invested... ...and all that takes is letting them know you're thinking of them.

Send them a text that says, "I miss you, I'm thinking of you and I can't wait to see you." It could be that you go to their favorite department store on your lunch break and buy him/her a shirt you know they'd love... ...or you purchase their favorite meal from that Indian restaurant down the street from your house. When it comes to relationships--and cultivating an intensely passionate, and seriously satisfying partnership, all it takes is some care, attention and the nurturing of the small details. The small stuff ends up being really, powerful stuff--acts of kindness and thoughtfulness that you have the power to change at ANY point. If you're not already, get excited - because this isn't just about being likable; it's about presenting the perfect version of yourself in a way that will become irresistible to everyone you meet. We implemented a ten-minute rule and promised that if we really wanted to use a device in the evening, we would wait ten minutes before doing so. The rule allowed us time to "surf the urge" and insert a pause to interrupt the otherwise mindless habit. We also connected our internet router and monitors to seven-dollar timer outlets purchased at a local hardware store and set them to turn off at 10 pm each night. Using this effort pact meant that in order to "cheat" we would have to uncomfortably contort behind our desks and flip the override switch. In short, we were making progress by using all four methods for becoming indistractable. We learned to cope with the stress of stopping our compulsion to use technology in the evening, and, over time, it became easier to resist. We scheduled a strict bedtime, claiming the bedroom as a sacred space and leaving external triggers, like our cell phones and the television, outside. The outlet timer that turned off the unwanted distractions made compliance with our precommitment something we came to expect every night. We began to use our reclaimed time for more "productive" purposes as we gained greater control over our habits. Though we were proud of our tech-blocking invention, many routers like the Eero now come with internet shut-off capabilities built in. If I lose track of time and try to check email after ten o'clock, a message from my router reminds me to get off the computer and go snuggle with my wife. Distractions can take a toll on even our most intimate relationships; the cost of being able to connect with anyone in the world is that we might not be fully present with the person physically next to us. My wife and I still love our gadgets and fully embrace the potential of innovation to improve our lives, but we want to benefit from technology without suffering from the corrosive effects it can have on our relationship. By learning to deal with our internal triggers, making time for the things we really want to do, removing harmful external triggers, and using precommitments, we were finally able to conquer distractions in our relationship. Distraction can be an impediment in our most intimate relationships.

Instant digital connectivity can come at the expense of being fully present with those beside us. Indistractable partners reclaim time for togetherness. Following the four steps to becoming indistractable can ensure you make time for your partner. Now it's your turn to become indistractable. Seems like a big scam, doesn't it? But think about the stock analysts who market themselves as being superior because they perform above average four years in a row. You often see advertisements touting the ability of a stock analyst to beat his peers in the financial newsletters and on TV. However, out of one thousand stock analysts, about sixty-two will perform above average four years in a row by chance alone. As Martin Fridson explains, this beat-your-peers fallacy "is repeated every day in the financial markets. Investment advisers regularly win new clients on the strength of performance records that are not demonstrably better than chance results. Market forecasters routinely persuade investors of their excellence by stringing together just a few correct predictions. If these representations of superior scale can be discredited so easily, why do people persist in relying on them? Investors simply do not understand the basic principles of probability."18 Stock analysts imply that if we follow their suggestions we can "beat the market." What does that mean? The market is comprised of thousands upon thousands of stocks, actively traded on exchanges like the New York Stock Exchange. While we're not going to invest in every stock, we can invest in an index fund, which is a fund that reflects the returns we would earn from a broad category of stocks. For example, one index fund mirrors the returns earned by the five hundred stocks included in the Standard & Poor's 500 listing. Index funds are not actively managed--an investment expert is not using her expertise to select the stocks she thinks are valuable, as is the case with the vast majority of mutual funds. Presumably, if stock analysts use their expert knowledge they should be able to do better (i.e., earn a higher return) than an index fund. If not, their advice isn't worth much. So the question is, Can the experts beat the market?

Let's look at the evidence. One type of evidence comes from the performance of fund managers. These individuals spend their entire professional lives analyzing the market, and buying and selling individual stocks for the funds they manage. In 2005 there were over eight thousand such funds marketed.19 Do their managed portfolios earn a higher return than an index fund? It turns out that the majority of funds do not beat the average market return in any given year. Considerable research demonstrates this fact, going all the way back to the 1960s. Michael Jensen, a University of Rochester professor, demonstrated that mutual funds from 1945 to 1964 were "not able to predict security prices well enough to outperform a buy the market and hold policy."20 And that fact holds true today. If you just bought an index fund, which mirrors the returns offered by the overall market, you would have beaten 50 percent to 80 percent of the fund managers in the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s.21 Now you may say, some funds do beat the market. Maybe those fund managers have superior knowledge that they can capitalize on. But the data argues otherwise. While some mutual funds have performed better than an index fund over short time periods, they typically can't achieve that superior performance over the long term. The top twenty performing mutual funds in the 1980s were understandably better than the S&P 500 index in that decade (18.0% vs. 14.1% return). However, those same funds did worse than the S&P index in the 1990s (13.7% vs. 14.9%). A more dramatic example of a fund's inability to stay on top can be seen in the last few years. Riding the Internet bubble, the top twenty funds in 1998-1999 achieved a 76.72 percent return, a staggering three times higher than the S&P 500 index of 24.75 percent. However, those same funds came crashing down to a -31.52 percent return in 2000-2001, a loss three times greater than the S&P index of -10.50 percent. The number one ranked fund in 1998-1999 (Van Wagoner: Emerging Growth) dropped in rank to 1,106, the second best fund (Rydex: OTC Fund; Investor Shares) dropped to 1,103, while the third best fell to 1,098. As can be seen, there is no consistency in superior performance.

In fact, the average large cap mutual fund earned about 2 percent less per year than the S&P 500 index fund over a twenty-year period ending December 31, 2001! Remember our discussion on chance and coincidence? Before we start to attribute some cause for an event, we need to demonstrate that the event was not the result of chance. So can mutual fund performance be explained by chance? What if we selected a sample of one thousand mutual funds and analyzed the percent that would be in the top half in performance over a number of years by chance alone. If we had one thousand people flip a coin, about five hundred heads would come up. If these five hundred advanced to the second round and flipped again, about two hundred fifty would be heads. About one hundred twenty-five will be heads in the third round, sixty-three in the fourth, and thirty-one in the fifth. So by chance alone, 50 percent of the funds would be in the top half in year one, 25 percent would be in the top half two years in a row, while 12.5 percent, 6.25 percent, and 3.1 percent would be in the top half for three, four, and five years in a row, respectively. And so, by chance alone, 3 percent of funds should perform in the top half five years in a row. Is mutual fund performance significantly different from these results? William Sherden analyzed the performance of all mutual funds with assets over $500 million between 1991 and 1995. For each of the five years he determined the number of funds that performed in the top half for two to five years in a row.23 As can be seen in figure 10, 50 percent of funds were in the top half in the first year, 27 percent were in the top half two years in a row, 17 percent performed above average for three years, 4 percent for four years, and 3 percent for five years. These numbers are just about what chance would predict. As Burton Malkiel has stated, "The few examples of consistently superior performance occurred no more frequently than can be expected by chance." Deep concentration has the effect of slowing down the thought process and speeding up the awareness viewing it. The result is the enhanced ability to examine the thought process. Concentration is our microscope for viewing subtle internal states. We use the focus of attention to achieve one-pointedness of mind with calm and constantly applied attention. Without a fixed reference point you get lost, overcome by the ceaseless waves of change flowing round and round within the mind. We use breath as our focus.