Subjective reality doesn't mean we can actively influence it remotely via thoughts and emotions. All it means is that we create our inward perception of it. The meaning that we ascribe to it is our own, but not the actual machinations of it.
I'll be honest deb: I know you probably end up a lot happier because of this idea, and also probably do a fair amount of good as a result, but the idea itself is dangerous when taken to such extremes.
As evidence, I'll be paraphrasing Ingrid Hansen Smythe's scathing review of "The Secret", a "power of attraction" book that sounds a lot like what you're espousing....as well as inserting my own thoughts.
Limits of Attraction:
Imagine a scenario where a young girl is raped, chopped to pieces, thrown into a trashbag in those pieces, burned, then cast aside. Brutal, no? And the obvious question is: Did she attract that to herself via her thoughts and feelings?
No. Of course not. I doubt you'd say so, and no rational person would. But let's get more nuanced. The everyday occurences that happen to people, good, bad, or even neutral. Are those attracted? Possibly, under the theory. But where draw the line? There isn't one. And does a person only attract things (positive or negative) if they are conscious that they should attract it?
And even in the brutal example of the girl, why throw it out so casually as a refutation? If I can influence a bee via positive thoughts, or a person can bring woe upon themselves by thinking negatively, how is it that we can discard the example of the girl? The answer is, we can't. Saying that she didn't deserve it or that her thoughts had nothing to do with it seems like a monkey wrench in the theory, which has no testable basis on rational grounds anyway.
Coincidences:
We all have at least 1 (probably more) stories of coincidences. This is extremely common. Hundreds of thousands of coincidences happen on a daily basis, made into a rather bland fact by the sheer power of probability, the number of people on the planet, and the staggering number of tasks we complete each day and thoughts that race through our head...each of which is a potential for a coincidence, possibly a very large one. And we are programmed by evolution to be pattern-seeking individuals. We find the coincidences.
And we remember the hits, but not the misses. If a person dreamed of an old friend, woke up the next morning and found out he was dead, it would be hard to convince him that something paranormal didn't occur. Nobody recounts the billions of deaths that went unnoticed in dreams, even of close friends and relatives. But if it happens to one person, say in England next week, my guess is that the newspapers or tv stations will pick it up on a slow day, and a good chunk of the population of England will hear about it (if only as a flippant paragraph or two deep within a newspaper), thus reinforcing the general belief. Then we have media outlets (Chicken Soup for the New Age Soul?) dedicated to perpetuating ideas like this. The odds of such a thing happening are actually very possible, but we only realize it if we take the time to think about it.
Now, combine all that with a person who buys into this system of attraction. Now, more than ever, the person is acutely cognizant of the patterns around them, of the relationships between one action and a subsequent consequence, of the power they have over their lives. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, not simply a reasonable assessment of the world.
"Quantum Thinking":
You alluded to it in your opening post, so my guess is that you're referring to observer-based occurences within quantum mechanics. The idea is actually rather silly. The myth is that reality cannot exist without mind, that we aren't just observing reality but influencing it by the very act of observation. This has remained urban myth among laypeople with a cursory understanding of the theory.
The more elegant reality of the situation is simply that quantum states are notoriously hard to maintain, and that any influence is liable to collapse it. Basically, in any situation where an observer CAN observe a quantum state (say, shedding light on the interaction so as to record it), the quantum state is compromised (in the case of the light, the photons would disrupt the system).
Concessions:
I'm not attacking debbie (who I like as a forum member and respect). I simply felt obligated to talk about something that I see as little more than pseudo-science that panders to our sense of wonder, without taking into account a more logical approach to the idea.
Self-fulfilling prophecies occur. If you are convinced you won't do something, chances are you won't (and yours odds improve with a similarly positive outlook). But be very, very careful how far you take it, and also what kinds of justifications you use to support it.
...
P.S. I play my best golf when I'm angry as hell. The kind of anger that turns into rage, and it hones it into a focus...but at that point I can't even feel happy for the good shots. Whatever I'm angry about transcends it. I suppose I shouldn't try that though when it's raining...I might call down lightning on myself ( 🙄 )