We all grew up learning about this idea of the evil eye or when you share too much good news about success, achievements, good results. Somehow, the weird, evil, negative force just comes to your life. Well, it happened to me. Once my mother and I announced that I finished my doctorate and I I'm about to graduate, a lot of weird things started to happen. For example, the week after the announcement, I got fired from my job. A little bit after, our house got stolen. Pretty much in the same week. So that made me thinking, what if what if it has to do with quantum physics? You know, we all know about the observer effect in the double slit experiment. What happens is once you observe something, it automatically collapses. Its superposition collapses. So it turns from a wave, something that can be anything, like it's it's everything and anything, to a particle just because it's been observed. What if what if observing here is what my blog rawblog.ai here is all about? Because the whole point of observation is when you collapse something that is multidimensional into something linear, like when we speak, we kind of bring ideas that can be anything and everything and multidimensional and connected to emotions and connected to other ideas into something that is so linear and projected from point a to point b just to explain an idea or keep it or preserve it. And that, of course, makes it lose a lot of its value and a lot of its momentum. So maybe sharing has that negative effect on deteriorating the value of of things. Of course, it's hard to explain because I still use the same language, the same tool, the same instrument that I am basically trying to prove that it is the reason of what we consider evil. So something that needs more, more observation and more, explanation for sure.
The Evil Eye Was Right: Why Sharing Kills What You're Building
AI-polished version. Switch to Raw for the unfiltered original.
The Evil Eye Was Right: Why Sharing Kills What You're Building
The week I announced my doctorate, the world took it back. My mother and I told everyone. The degree was done, the graduation was coming, the years of work had finally landed somewhere solid. Then, within days, I lost my job. Then our house was robbed. The announcement and the collapse arrived in the same breath.
I am not a superstitious person. But I am a curious one. And the pattern was too clean to ignore.
Every culture on earth has a version of the evil eye — the belief that naming your good fortune too loudly invites something to unmake it. Most educated people file this under folklore and move on. I used to. But what if the ancients were not describing a supernatural curse? What if they were describing, in the only language available to them, something closer to a physical principle?
Consider the observer effect. In quantum mechanics, a particle in superposition exists as a wave of probabilities — it is, in a real sense, everything it could be simultaneously. The moment it is observed, that wave collapses. It becomes one thing. A fixed point. The act of measurement does not merely record reality; it forecloses it.
Now consider what happens when you speak a dream out loud. Before you say it, the idea lives in full dimensionality — tangled with emotion, connected to other ideas, alive with possibility. The moment you compress it into language and project it from your mouth to another person's ear, you have done something irreversible. You have collapsed it. You have turned a wave into a particle. The momentum that lived in the unspoken thing bleeds out into the telling.
This is not mysticism. Language is a lossy compression. Every sentence you construct to explain an idea is also a sentence that destroys some part of what the idea was before you touched it. The map is not the territory, and the announcement is not the achievement — but once you make the announcement, the achievement starts living in other people's minds, shaped by their understanding, their envy, their indifference. You have handed the wave function to the crowd.
The counterargument is obvious: sharing creates accountability. Telling people your goals makes you more likely to finish them. There is research supporting this. And for certain kinds of goals — ones that require external pressure to complete — that may be true. But there is a different category of thing: the achievement already in motion, the work already done, the life already quietly ascending. For that category, the announcement may not accelerate anything. It may simply expose the wave to observation before it has finished collapsing into what it was always going to become.
I am aware of the irony. I am writing this down. I am publishing it. I am using the very instrument I am indicting — language, sharing, the public declaration — to argue that public declarations carry a cost. The contradiction does not dissolve the argument. It sharpens it. Even this essay loses something in the writing. The raw thought, before I shaped it into sentences, was larger than what you are reading now.
Maybe the evil eye was never about envy. Maybe it was about physics. Maybe every grandmother who told you not to brag was not protecting you from other people's jealousy. She was protecting the wave from collapsing too soon.
--- The Marrow: Premature sharing may not invite supernatural punishment — it may simply destroy the multidimensional potential of an idea or achievement by forcing it to collapse into fixed, linear form, the same way observation collapses a quantum wave function.
Key Sources: Observer effect / double slit experiment (widely established physics; specific claims here are accurate at a conceptual level — needs sourcing for any deeper technical claims). Research on goal-sharing and accountability (referenced as general claim — needs sourcing for specific studies).
What I Shaped: I preserved the author's core intuition connecting the evil eye to the quantum observer effect, and kept the autobiographical anchor (doctorate announcement, job loss, robbery) as the emotional engine. I restructured the argument from a rambling personal reflection into a layered editorial that moves from anecdote to physics to language theory to concession and back. The self-aware closing paradox — that writing this essay enacts the very problem it describes — was latent in the raw draft's final sentence and I brought it forward as the resonant close.