When People Talk About Things Like They're Alive

"The algorithm hates me" and other lies we tell ourselves

🔥 Hook

Your friend posts a fire edit on TikTok. Three views. She's devastated.

"The algorithm is punishing me," she says. "It doesn't want me to succeed."

Wait. It doesn't want? Since when does a bunch of math have feelings and grudges? Since when does code wake up and decide to ruin your day?

You've heard this kind of talk everywhere. "The economy demands sacrifice." "Science says you should..." "Nature intended for..."

But here's the thing: none of these things are people. They can't want anything. They can't demand anything. And when someone talks about them like they can, something sneaky is happening.

🧠 What's Actually Happening?

This is called the reification fallacy. Big word, simple idea: taking something abstract — like an algorithm, the market, nature, or science — and talking about it like it's a person with goals and desires.

"The market wants lower interest rates." No it doesn't. The market is millions of people making millions of decisions. It doesn't "want" anything.

"Nature abhors a vacuum." Nature doesn't abhor anything. Nature doesn't have feelings. Certain physical processes happen to fill empty spaces. That's it.

Why does this matter? Because when you turn an abstract idea into a character with agency, you stop asking the real question: who actually made this decision, and why?

"The algorithm buried my video" sounds like fate. "A company designed software that prioritizes certain content for profit" sounds like something you can actually push back on.

📱 Real-Life Scroll

TikTok/YouTube: "The algorithm is promoting toxic content." Who designed the algorithm? Who chose engagement over safety? Real people at real companies made those choices.

School: "History teaches us that..." History doesn't teach. Historians interpret events, and different historians reach different conclusions. When someone says "history teaches," they're sneaking in their interpretation as fact.

Gaming: "The meta demands you play this character." The meta is just what a lot of players currently do. It doesn't demand anything. You can play off-meta and still win.

News: "The economy needs workers to accept lower wages." The economy isn't a creature with needs. Specific business owners want to pay less. That's a very different sentence.

Family: "That's just how life works." Life doesn't "work" any way. People built systems. People can change them.

🔍 How to Spot It

Listen for abstract nouns doing human things:

• "X wants..." (markets, algorithms, nature)
• "X demands..." (the economy, tradition, science)
• "X teaches us..." (history, experience, life)
• "X rewards/punishes..." (the universe, karma, fate)

Ask yourself: Can this thing actually want, decide, or feel? If not, someone is hiding the real actor behind a mask.

💬 What You Can Do

When you hear "the algorithm hates small creators":

• Ask who: "Who designed it to work that way?"
• Reframe it: "You mean the company's software prioritizes viral content over new creators?"
• Challenge the agency: "Algorithms don't hate. But the people who built them made specific choices."

You don't have to be rude about it. Just shift from the abstract back to the real. Who actually did this? Who benefits?

🎯 Your Challenge

This week, catch three moments where someone (including you!) talks about an abstract thing like it's alive. Write them down. Then rewrite each sentence replacing the abstract thing with the actual person or group making the decision.

Example:

• Before: "Social media is destroying attention spans."
• After: "Companies designed apps to maximize screen time, which affects how we focus."

See how different that feels? One sounds like an unstoppable force. The other sounds like a problem with a solution.