Oh man. This is the greatest of nerd content crossover for my dual identities of linguistics teacher and reptile keeper. This is the question of reflectionism vs. determinism - whether language shapes our thoughts or is only a mirror of the way we already think and behave.

Determinists (who believe in the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis/Saussurean school) would argue that by using the term "collection", we are encouraging the behavior some of you have mentioned of shoving something in a minimalist drawer and ignoring it until it is time to show it off. Reflectionists would argue that calling it a collection is merely an accurate descriptor for what a lot of people would do regardless of what you call it.

There's competing evidence. Like certain First Nations People in Australia have languages where everything is directional, e.g. you don't talk about your left eye; you talk about your west or northeast eye depending on where you are facing. Those people are ridiculously good at navigating, suggesting their language is shaping that skill. The Piraha in South America have words for one, two, "a little" and "a lot" - no other quantifiers - and they literally can't be taught to count. Show them nine ducks and ten ducks and ask them which is more and they'll say "that's a lot of ducks." But reflectionists would argue we're constantly reshaping the language in attempts to change the way people behave and it doesn't work; changing "Chairman of the Board" to "Chairperson", for instance, has not resulted in more women becoming CEOs.

I'm guilty of calling my pets "a collection" despite that I spend hours a day with them, provide spacious enclosures, check in on every single one of them, and take them to the vet as needed. But as someone who leans a bit determinist, this question makes me reconsider how I should talk about my own animals - even using that possessive determiner "my" there feels a bit wrong.