Every generation faces challenges, whether it be personal freedoms, academic pursuits, family dynamics, or social pressures. However, growing up in the “golden age” of the ’80s and ’90s, millennials often fondly think back on their childhoods. Strategically placed in a time when new technology was rocketing convenience, shared experience was at the forefront, and privacy wasn’t even a concern.

Childhood lifestyles that offered independence, innovation, opportunity for social interactions, and an overall communal experience were freedoms and norms rarely experienced by earlier generations. Not to be outdone, Gen Alpha (those born between 2010 and 2024) is leveraging access to new technologies to create a lifestyle that offers similar benefits in a time with fewer physical freedoms of autonomy.

computers, technologies, kids, younger generations, communal experience, innovation, social interaction
Kids on their computers. Photo credit:u00a0Canva

A Reddit thread on r/Millennials posed an interesting question: “Did we grow up in the golden age of growing up?”

Redditors started sharing some of the celebrated things that they remembered from growing up millennial. It’s an interesting exercise to see what was so great about the time and wonder how Gen Alpha can find ways to live their own best childhoods.

Millennials lived a childhood with true independence

Millennials: There was a real sense of autonomy. Often, without parental supervision, freedom to go where and whenever they wanted was common. There weren’t any cellphones to do check-ins. Once out on their bikes with friends in the wild, it was possible to go many hours without any adults to interfere. Because of this, when problems arose, which any group of kids is bound to run into, working it out together was the best and only solution.

One Redditor, u/Omnicloud87, remembered, “I remember summer vacations at 15 and just going from friends house to friends house. Walking from city to city. The movies, then the mall, then back to the movies! Riding bikes all over New Jersey.”

A 2025 review in Kids Mental Health found that collaborating between peers helps children break down complex problems and enhance cognitive thinking. Learning how to negotiate and process challenging emotions demonstrated the trade-offs of fairness and inequality when problem-solving.

Generation Alpha: Maybe not as physically free to roam the neighborhoods alone, kids from this generation have greater freedom and access to technology. A 2025 survey reported in Attest found that Gen Alpha is “emerging as an exceptionally practical and autonomous generation.” They have more spending power than past generations and greater access to digital devices, such as mobile phones and gaming consoles.

problem solving, vacations, riding bikes, drones, emotions, fairness, spending power
Young girl holds a drone. Photo credit Canva

Millennials experienced technological innovations without losing their privacy

Millennials: With emerging technology like video games or burning CDs of music for friends, science was bringing innovation into the home. Getting to sit in the Captain’s chair on an airplane before takeoff was a normal interaction for kids on a first flight—an experience that would be completely unheard of today. There was a feeling that the world was evolving, and kids got to reap the benefits from it: playing with tech and not worrying about the experience being captured for all of eternity in some social media post. When a picture was taken, it took a week to be developed. Today, with one click of a finger a digital photo can be posted forever on the internet.

u/Virtual_Library_3443 said it best when reflecting about the millennial childhood, “We had a pretty rad ‘kid culture’ for sure!”

Because millennials experienced early access to new technologies as children, they suffer fewer limitations when interacting with more recent technologies like Artificial Intelligence. A 2021 study showed that the generation demonstrates high comfort with platforms such as Instagram and Snapchat. They even kept pace with emerging tech, such as digital tokens like NFTs.

Generation Alpha: Not to be outdone, this generation of kids now has access to self-directed learning. With tools like AI, children can choose and pursue personalized learning support while gathering timely feedback. A 2025 study published in ResearchGate showed AI offered kids recommendations for self-learning practices, including skills acquisition and knowledge building across multiple disciplines.

80s, 90s, 2000s, texting, social media, landlines, internet, resilience skills, well-being
Playing with bubbles. Photo credit:u00a0Canva

Millennials navigated a life requiring inner fortitude and courageous action

Millennials: Growing up in the ’80s and ’90s required a good amount of inner fortitude. Randomly going to a friend’s house and ringing the doorbell without knowing if anyone was home, commonplace. Using a landline phone to call a school crush, only to get their parents, required some unexpected conversational stumbles that could only make them stronger.

“The limited internet I had access to as a teen helped me connect with people and discover new things when I desperately needed to,” shared u/drjenavieve.

Interestingly enough, millennials have embraced new technology like texting wholeheartedly. A 2022 survey by Edison Mail found that 74% of millennials preferred texting as their favorite form of communication, with only 22% feeling the same about phone calls.

Generation Alpha: This generation is constantly facing an evolving world while remaining more curious, more conscientious, and more emotionally secure. A 2023 article in Pew emphasized the importance of resilience skills as building blocks that children can learn for well-being. The ability to build connections with peers through in-person events, phone and video chats, or text improves self-confidence.

Millennials experienced social interactions that formed a sense of community

Millennials: One of the great millennial childhood experiences involved heading to a Blockbuster to grab the last VHS copy of a new release movie on a Friday night. Or returning to school the next morning to discuss the latest episode of a miniseries the whole nation was tuning in for every Thursday night. Many one-time-only opportunities were a part of the daily life experience that fostered a collective feeling of community.

“Kid shows were more ambitious and memorable. Toys were made to provide core memories. Music was more creative, still relied on actual musical instrumental talent, and even pop was catchier and more feel-good,” shared u/jgreg728.

A 2021 study in the National Library of Medicine found that during the COVID-19 lockdown, people watching and commenting on social TV and content experienced greater enjoyment. Because people had limited physical interactions, sharing over a common event boosted enjoyment and overall mood.

Generation Alpha: A 2024 article published in ASCD, a global educational organization, showed that Gen Alpha is very active in online communities. This unique communication style offers engaged peer interactions. The distinct language created from gaming, memes, AI-driven trends, and social media platforms like TikTok and YouTube fosters emotional intelligence while impacting decision-making. This also reorders the thinking processes to identify connections and perceive relationships.

VHS, BlockBuster, emotional intelligence, decision-making, TikTok, YouTube, identity, Artificial Intelligence, AI
Friends on the computer. Photo credit:u00a0Canva

Generation Alpha will have complicated experiences that are both positive and negative. Learning independence, digital freedom for content creation, self-directed learning with advanced tools like AI, social networking through digital and gaming communities, and greater social awareness are all components of building these young adults. Some day, Gen Alpha will look back over their own “golden age,” sharing what worked best so future generations can benefit.

  • Italian man claims to be ‘human cheetah’ with lightning-fast reflexes
    Photo credit: CanvaA man with fast reflexes.

    At first glance, this probably looks like a camera trick. Ken Lee, an Italian content creator, has built a massive online following by doing something that doesn’t quite feel real. Viewers refer to him as the “human cheetah” because it appears he has near-instant reflexes.

    Grabbing objects out of the air with uncanny precision, flicking clothespins and lighters, and throwing a blur of punches and kicks at impossible speeds, it is easy to call him unbelievable. Half the audience thinks his viral speed videos are fake. The other half is just as convinced they are watching something incredibly rare.

    Hands so fast they blur time

    In the video above, a timer runs to confirm its authenticity. In what looks like half a second, he reaches out and snags the lighter from the table. To prove it is real, he does it twice.

    Having amassed millions of followers on his TikTok page, the identity behind the mysterious influencer remains largely unknown. Active since around 2022, with almost 100 million accumulated likes, Lee has cultivated a fandom around his self-proclaimed “Superhero per Hobby!”

    Do you believe it is real? Is this person the fastest human alive? Many followers cannot wait for the next video to be posted. Plenty of his fervent fans are Italian, so sifting through the remarks takes a bit of hunting. Here are some comments that sum up how much people enjoy the fun and the spectacle:

    “Ken lee the fastest and the best”

    “Most dangerous human”

    “Is this what the lighter sees before my homie steals it”

    “It was sped up during he grabbed the lighter, if u count up with the timer u would be off by like 0,5 seconds whenever he grabs the lighter.”

    “If the flash were human”

    “How is it possible to get such powers ?”

    “I blinked and I missed it”

    People love good entertainment

    The awe of peak performance attracts people to watch elite athletes, musicians, or even dancers. There is something that deeply satisfies all of us when a human appears to push a skill to its limit. Whether it is real or fake seems to matter less than the opportunity to chime in on some good entertainment.

    How far could any of us go by practicing and repeating a particular motion over and over until it is mastered? Beneath the flashy nickname and his viral speed videos, Lee’s content has a way of drawing people in. This is not a superpower. Just repetition. Focus. Obsession. And maybe some digital wizardry.

    Testing the science of speed

    If you wish to question the validity of Lee’s performances, maybe some basic science can help. Human reaction time is not just a reflex. A 2024 study found that the nervous system can fine-tune responses in real time. Practice can make movements appear almost automatic.

    It has been well established in research that the gap between seeing something and responding has a limit. A 2025 study concluded that the most elite extremes allow for reaction times of 100 milliseconds. At that speed, the human brain can barely process that something has happened.

    Science explains Lee is not necessarily moving as fast as we might perceive him to be. And therein lies all the fun of it. We cannot prove it is real, nor can we actually prove that it is fake.

    Maybe Lee is the “fastest man alive” or the so-called “human cheetah.” Or maybe he is just a remarkable entertainer. Either way, he has clearly tapped into something strange and fascinating: a blend of human ability and fantasy that people do not want to miss.

    To give context to Lee’s videos, watch this performance on Tú Sí Que Vales:

  • Despite all the likes, literallys and dropped g’s, English isn’t decaying before our eyes
    Photo credit: LisaStrachan/iStock via Getty Images Fear not: There isn’t anything that needs saving.

    As a linguistics professor, I’m often asked why English is decaying before our eyes, whether it’s “like” being used promiscuouslyt’s being dropped deleteriously or “literally” being deployed nonliterally.

    While these common gripes point to eccentric speech patterns, they don’t point to grammatical annihilation. English has weathered far worse.

    Let’s start with something we can all agree on: Old English, spoken from approximately A.D. 450 to 1100, is pretty unintelligible to us today. Anyone who’s had the pleasure of reading “Beowulf” in high school knows how different English back then used to sound. Word endings did a lot more grammatical work, and verbs followed more complicated patterns. Remnants of those rules fuel lingering debates today, such as when to use “whom” over “who,” and whether the past tense of “sneak” is “snuck” or “sneaked.”

    The language went on to experience centuries of tumult: Viking invasions, which introduced Old Norse influence; Anglo-Norman French rule, which shifted the language of the elite to French; and 18th-Century grammarians, who dictated norms with their elocution and grammar guides.

    In that time, English has lost almost all of the more complex linguistic trappings it was born with to become the language we know and – at least, sometimes – love today. And as I explain in my new book, “Why We Talk Funny: The Real Story Behind Our Accents,” it was all thanks to the way that language naturally evolves to meet the social needs of its speakers.

    From dropping the ‘l’ to dropping the ‘g’

    The things we tend to label as “bad” or sloppy English – for instance, the “g” that gets lost from our -ing endings or the deletion of a “t” when we say a word like “innernet” – actually reflect speech habits that are centuries old.

    Take, for example, “often.” Originally spoken with the “t,” that pronunciation gradually became less favored around the 15th century, alongside that “l” in “talk” and the “k” in know. Meanwhile, the “s” now stuck on the back of verbs like “does” and “makes” began as a dialectal variant that only became popular in 16th-century London. It gradually replaced “th” whenever third persons were involved, as in “The lady doth protest too much.”

    While dropping the “l” in talk may have been initially frowned upon, today it would be strange if you pronounced the letter. And the shift makes sense: It smoothed out some linguistic awkwardness for the sake of efficiency.

    If people learned to look at language more like linguists, they might come around to seeing that there is more than one perspective on what good speech consists of.

    And yes, that absolutely is a sentence ending with a preposition – something many modern grammar guides discourage, even though the idea only took hold after 18th-century grammarian Robert Lowth intimated it was a less elegant choice based on the model of Latin.

    Though Lowth voiced no hard and fast rule against it, many a grammar maven later misconstrued his advice as an admonition. Just like that, a mere suggestion became grammatical law.

    The rise of the grammar sticklers

    Many of today’s ideas about what constitutes correct English are based on a singular – often mistaken – 19th-century view of the forces that govern our language.

    In the late 18th century, the English-speaking world began experiencing class restructuring and higher literacy rates. As greater class mobility became possible, accent differences became class markers that separated new money from old money.

    Emulation of upper-crust speech norms became popular among the nouveau riche. With literacy also on the rise, grammarians and elocutionists raced to dictate the terms of “proper” English on and off the page, which led to the rise of usage guides and dictionaries that were eager to sell a certain brand of speech.

    Another example of grammarian angst reconfiguring the view of an otherwise perfectly fine form is the droppin’ of the “g.” It became so tied to slovenly speech that it was branded with an apostrophe in the 19th century to make sure no one missed its lackadaisical and nonstandard nature.

    Up until the 19th century, however, no one seemed to care whether one pronounced it as “-in” or “-ing.”

    Evidence suggests that -ing wasn’t even heard as the correct form. Many elocution guides from the 18th century provide rhyming word pairs like “herring/heron,” “coughing/coffin” and “jerking/jerkin,” which suggest that “-in” may have been the preferred pronunciation of words ending with “-ing.” Even writer and satirist Jonathan Swift – a frequent lobbyist for “proper” English – rhymes “brewing” with “ruin” in his 1731 poem “Verses on the Death of Dr. Swift, D.S.P.D..”

    Embrace the change

    Language has always shifted and evolved. People often bristle at changes from what they’ve known to what is new. And maybe that’s because this process often begins with speakers that society usually looks less favorably on: the young, the female, the poor, the nonwhite.

    But it’s important to remember that being disliked and bad are not the same thing – that today’s speech pariahs are driven by the same linguistic and social needs as the Londoners who started going with “does” instead of “doth” or dropped the “t” in often.

    So if you think the speech that comes from your lips is the “correct” version, think again. Thou, like every other English speaker, art literally the product of centuries of linguistic reinvention.

    This article originally appeared on The Conversation. You can read it here.

  • 10 boys and 10 girls were left alone in separate houses and the different results are just wild
    Photo credit: Ian Taylor PhotographerTwo young children play in the grass.

    It sounds like the plot of William Golding’s Lord of the Flies. However, in the mid-2000s, it was a very real and very controversial reality television experiment.

    Footage from the UK Channel 4 documentary Boys and Girls Alone is captivating audiences all over again. It offers a fascinating and chaotic look at what happens when you remove parents from the equation.

    The premise was simple but high stakes. Twenty children, aged 11 and 12, were split into two groups by gender. Ten boys and ten girls were placed in separate houses and told to live without adult supervision for five days.

    The Setup

    While there were safety nets in place, the day-to-day living was entirely up to the kids. A camera crew was present but instructed not to intervene unless safety was at risk. The children could also ring a bell to speak to a nurse or psychiatrist.

    The houses were fully stocked with food, cleaning supplies, toys, and paints. Everything they needed to survive was there. They just had to figure out how to use it.

    The Boys: Instant Chaos

    In the boys’ house, the unraveling was almost immediate. The newfound freedom triggered a rapid descent into high-energy anarchy.

    They engaged in water pistol fights and threw cushions. In one memorable instance, a boy named Michael covered the carpet in sticky popcorn kernels just because he could.

    The destruction eventually escalated to the walls. The boys covered the house in writing, drawing, and paint. But the euphoria of freedom eventually crashed into the reality of consequences.

    “We never expected to be like this, but I’m really upset that we trashed it so badly,” one boy admitted in the footage. “We were trying to explore everything at once and got too carried away in ourselves.”

    Their attempts to clean up were frantic and largely ineffective. Nutrition also took a hit. Despite having completed a cooking course, the boys survived mostly on cereal, sugar, and the occasional frozen pizza. By the end of the week, the house was trashed, and the group had fractured into opposing factions.

    The Girls: Organized Society

    The girls’ house looked like a different planet.

    In stark contrast to the mayhem next door, the girls immediately established a functioning society. They organized a cooking roster, with a girl named Sherry preparing their first meal. They baked cakes. They put on a fashion show. They even drew up a scrupulous chores list to ensure the house stayed livable.

    While their stay wasn’t devoid of interpersonal drama, the experiment highlighted a fascinating divergence in socialization. Left to their own devices, the girls prioritized community and maintenance. The boys tested the absolute limits of their environment until it broke.

    The documentary was controversial when it aired, with critics questioning the ethics of placing children in unsupervised situations for entertainment. But what made it so enduring, and why footage keeps resurfacing years later, is what it reveals about how kids are socialized long before anyone puts them in a house together. The boys weren’t born anarchists and the girls weren’t born organizers. They arrived at those houses already shaped by years of being told, implicitly and explicitly, what boys do and what girls do. Whether that’s a nature story or a nurture story is the question the documentary keeps asking without quite answering, which is probably why people are still watching and arguing about it nearly two decades later.

    This article originally appeared two years ago. It has been updated.

Explore More Media Stories

Culture

Despite all the likes, literallys and dropped g’s, English isn’t decaying before our eyes

Culture

10 boys and 10 girls were left alone in separate houses and the different results are just wild

Media

9-year-old girl asks Steph Curry why his shoes aren’t in girls’ sizes. The response was perfect.

Media

A BBC crew broke ‘cardinal rule’ of nature documentaries to save trapped penguins