Phone or handwritten? The great debate ensues.
Are you the type of person who always writes grocery lists by hand? Perhaps on the back of a receipt, in a special notebook, or on an index card? Do you insist on this method, even though you’re the only one in the store unfurling paper like an ancient scroll while everyone has their heads down, tapping away at their phones?
Lists are undoubtedly important. In a recent poll, research revealed that the average British adult writes an average of three to-do lists a week—which, in some cases, can add up to 9,766 lists in a lifetime. “Evidently, we all rely on lists for one aspect of life or another,” commented Shahbaz Khan from STABILO, a high-quality pen and pencil company.
But when it comes to the actual list-making, does the method in which you create it really matter? Apparently, yes. And your choice, handwritten or digital, can say a lot about your personality.
People who write their lists by hand might be able to remember them better.Photo credit: Canva
If you prefer handwriting, you’re likely…
To have a mind that operates like a filing cabinet.
In 2024, two professors at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Dr. Audrey L.H. Van der Meer and F.R. (Ruud) Van der Weel, found that handwriting activates more elaborate and widespread brain connectivity patterns compared to typing. They suggest that the physical act of moving your hand while writing creates spatial and temporal patterns in the brain that promote learning.
In a similar study, Japanese researchers found that participants who wrote calendar events by hand on paper showed increased brain activity—particularly in memory regions—compared to those who recorded the same information on smartphones. The hand writers also recalled the information 25% faster than those who typed. Writing by hand triggers extra neural activity in regions tied to learning and memory. So, no matter how messy your handwriting might be, that grocery list might also be giving your memory a little work-out.
To be naturally conscientious and understand the secret to success.
Conscientiousness isn't the same as self-control or self-restraint—rather, it refers to a person's tendency to be organized, reliable, goal-directed, and self-disciplined. It's no surprise, then, that those who score highly in conscientiousness tend to be successful: they aim for high-profile outcomes and have the ability to develop well-thought-out plans to accomplish their goals.
Comfortable getting tactile.
Nothing quite compares to writing with your perfect pen. (By the way, what's yours? A Pilot G2-2? Uni-ball Vision Elite? Or perhaps something fancy, like the Squire Classic Pen from Baronfig?) It's a complete sensory experience as your pen glides across paper. This physical connection helps create a deeper engagement with the task at hand.
Writing your list by hand could curb impulse shopping. Photo credit: Canva
To not buy on impulse.
Yanliu Huang and Zhen Yang from the LeBow College of Business at Drexel University examined how handwritten shopping lists differ from digital ones. Their research showed that people who write lists on paper tend to make more planned purchases and fewer impulse buys.
However, there are a few downsides to a handwritten grocery list…
Let's face it: sometimes you can't read your own handwriting. When rushing, you might scribble illegibly, forget items, or leave the paper at home entirely. (Pro tip for forgetful hand-writers: snap a photo of your list before heading out, just in case.)
Paper lists are also cumbersome to update on the go. Picture this—you've just remembered you need onions while backing out of the driveway, but now you're scrambling for a pen. Don't do this. Plus, paper lists make it difficult to coordinate shopping with other people.
If you’re #DigitalForever, you’re likely…
In a poll of 2,000 people in the United Kingdom, researchers found that when it comes to list-making, only 40% use their phones, while 63% write on notepads and 24% use sticky notes. So congrats—you're right in the middle!
Extremely efficient and organized.
Your phone is a miracle list-maker: people who use digital lists value practicality over sentimentality—they appreciate the power of automatic sorting, expense tracking, and integrated coupon features. These lists can be updated instantly and accessed from almost any device, making them the most efficient, streamlined option.
Someone who uses data to make decisions.
Beyond expense tracking, many apps provide nutritional data, meal planning suggestions, and inventory management—helping you make smarter, healthier food choices. You're not just shopping anymore; you're strategically planning your nutrition.
Digital lists are perfect for collaborations. Photo credit: Canva
Collaborating with someone in the kitchen.
The beauty of a digital list is that it can be shared with others in real time, allowing multiple people to add items seamlessly. This eliminates miscommunications and duplicate purchases while reducing paper waste and promoting environmentally friendly habits.
The digital life has its downsides, too…
Taking a break from your phone can be refreshing, but keeping your grocery list there means more screen time—potentially leading to digital fatigue or distractions from notifications and other apps. There's also the practical concern: what if your phone dies, you lose Internet connection, or your service drops out while shopping?
Grocery shopping can be such a treat. Whether you use digital lists, handwritten scribbles, or memory tricks to track what you need, there's no wrong approach. The “best” way to write a grocery list depends on you: your personal preferences, your lifestyle, and what works for your routine. Ask yourself, “What will make me feel the most organized and calm?” Then let your grocery list lead the way.
From Your Site Articles
Image via Canva
People offer their theories on why Boomer grandparents are more absent.
Boomer grandparents have recently come under fire by their Millennial children for how they grandparent. Many Millennials have opened up online about their parents' less-than-stellar help with grandkids and their overall absence.
In a Reddit forum discussing the differences between generations, user @No_Language_423 posed the question: "Why are so many Boomer grandparents hands-off?" They went on to add, "Genuinely curious about this. Why is it that so many Boomer grandparents seem completely uninterested in being involved or helping out with their grandkids in a real, consistent way?"
In a further explanation, they added, "From what I’ve seen and heard, a lot of Boomers actually did have active, supportive parents when they were raising their own kids. Their moms would babysit, cook, or even move nearby to help out. But now, when Millennials become parents and hope for that same kind of support, it’s like even asking is seen as too much. Some even act insulted by the idea."
up s GIFGiphy
However, they also noted this description of Boomer grandparents can't be generalized. They added, "Of course, there are outliers. I’m not talking about the people who comment, 'Well I help my kids all the time.' That’s great, but I’m noticing a pattern, not isolated cases. There seems to be a broader generational vibe around this. It doesn’t feel like a case-by-case thing, it feels like a shift in attitude."
They ended their post with more pondering thoughts. "At the same time, I hear a lot of Millennial parents saying they already plan to be very involved grandparents someday. So what changed? Is it a cultural shift? A difference in how retirement is viewed? Or maybe Boomers didn’t get as much help as we assume? Curious to hear what others think, especially from people who’ve experienced this dynamic firsthand."
Many people chimed in with their thoughts and firsthand experience as to why Boomer grandparents seem to be hands-off. These are 15 of the most compelling responses.
Old Lady Reaction GIFGiphy
"The parents of boomers didn’t call their kids boomers; they called them the ME generation. Because it was all about them. They’re the ME generation." —@BEniceBAGECKA
"They were also pretty hands off as parents, too."—@ azulsonador0309
"Their moms were 23 when they had kids. Their kids were 23 when they had kids. Grandma was 46. Today’s grandmas are in their sixties. They have a hard time getting through the day without their own naps." —@Ok_Membership7264
"My theory is that it's related to people having kids later in life. The grandparents are older on average." —@nineoctopii
Season 7 Showtime GIF by DexterGiphy
"It's because they had children because 'that's what's done,' not because they actually wanted them. Now that they're 'free,' they aren't going to give that up for anything. Notice how they are also distant with their own kids. It's not like they're interested in their kids, but not the grandkids. They want nothing to do with any of it." —@ExcellentCold7354
"I'm 56. Most 56 year olds these days still have full time jobs and other responsibilities to where babysitting and moving are not viable options." —@shammy_dammy
"Have you met Gen X? They were feral kids for a reason. The boomers could barely be bothered to raise their own children. They certainly aren't going to be stepping up for the grandkids." —@gwenkane404
My Baby No GIF by CBeebies HQGiphy
"Millennials have also changed. Every time I offer to help, I get a scroll of instructions, gluten-free snacks, feelings charts, and nap negotiations that last longer than peace talks. Any small deviation is treated like trauma. It’s exhausting." —@Revolutionary-Buy655
"I'm a millennial with Boomer parents. My parents were pretty hands off when I was a child, so it's not surprising they were hands-off with their grandchildren. My parents dropped me off with my grandparents for weekends so frequently that I had my own bedroom there. I plan to be an involved grandparent because I value the relationship I had with my own grandparents so much. I feel sorry for the Boomers. They don't realize how much they are missing out on by focusing on themselves." —@CandidateNo2731
"They were sold the idea of retirement their entire lives. And now they feel entitled to that instead of adjusting with the times. They’re loss, historically." —@rollbackprices
season 7 kids GIFGiphy
"I think part of the answer is because a lot of them didn’t really want to have kids in the first place. But back then it’s just what you did. You got married at 20 and started popping out babies shortly after. If you didn’t, you were an abomination to the family." —@Screamcheese99
"We are older than the previous generation's grandparents. Believe it. Being 60+ and trying to care for toddlers is hard! Also, despite our experience and knowledge, we are often given ridiculous instructions and rules to follow by our own children, along with lists of likes/dislikes to adhere to. They expect entertainment in ways we are just not able to provide. Personal example from my attempt at babysitting my grandchild: I literally have not moved the car seat, that she installed, even an inch, but my DIL huffs, sighs, makes comments when getting her out of it. I am nice enough to drive her to her job to shorten their commute home, but I even do that wrong. So, forget it. I tried." —@TXteachr2018
"I think its because we live so far away from each other." —@Apprehensive_Pie_105
could not be more different long distance GIF by Jay SprogellGiphy
"Hmm. I feel like the sense of community is gone. Starting with the Boomers in my family they emigrated to the US and scattered away from each other. States away from each other they had no support system and worked themselves ragged. There wasn’t really a village to help raise a child. Now that they are retired it’s like having a second chance at life and they don’t want to spend it watching kids. They want to pursue their hobbies and relax which I honestly don’t blame them." —@KorraNHaru
"Many Boomers (not all! so don't come for me lol) have deep, untreated trauma and mental health issues. Many are even very detached from their own existences at this point. Narcissistic traits are common among them, which is based in deep self-loathing. I think deep down a lot of them feel ashamed of how they raised their kids and don't want to mess up their grandkids as well." —@Arysta
via Public Domain
Photos from the 1800s were so serious.
If you've ever perused photographs from the 19th and early 20th century, you've likely noticed how serious everyone looked. If there's a hint of a smile at all, it's oh-so-slight, but more often than not, our ancestors looked like they were sitting for a sepia-toned mug shot or being held for ransom or something. Why didn't people smile in photographs? Was life just so hard back then that nobody smiled? Were dour, sour expressions just the norm?
Most often, people's serious faces in old photographs are blamed on the long exposure time of early cameras, and that's true. Taking a photo was not an instant event like it is now; people had to sit still for many minutes in the 1800s to have their photo taken.
Ever try holding a smile for only one full minute? It's surprisingly difficult and very quickly becomes unnatural. A smile is a quick reaction, not a constant state of expression. Even people we think of as "smiley" aren't toting around full-toothed smiles for minutes on end. When you had to be still for several minutes to get your photo taken, there was just no way you were going to hold a smile for that long.
But there are other reasons besides long exposure times that people didn't smile in early photographs.
"Mona Lisa" by Leonardo da Vinci, painted in 1503Public domain
The non-smiling precedent had already been set by centuries of painted portraits
The long exposure times for early photos may have contributed to serious facial expressions, but so did the painted portraits that came before them. Look at all of the portraits of famous people throughout history prior to cameras. Sitting to be painted took hours, so smiling was out of the question. Other than the smallest of lip curls like the Mona Lisa, people didn't smile for painted portraits, so why would people suddenly think it normal to flash their pearly whites (which were not at all pearly white back then) for a photographed one? It simply wasn't how it was done.
A smirk? Sometimes. A full-on smile? Practically never.
Algerian immigrant to the United States. Photographed on Ellis Island by Augustus F. Sherman.via William Williams/Wikimedia Commons
Smiling usually indicated that you were a fool or a drunkard
Our perceptions of smiling have changed dramatically since the 1800s. In explaining why smiling was considered taboo in portraits and early photos, art historian Nicholas Jeeves wrote in Public Domain Review:
"Smiling also has a large number of discrete cultural and historical significances, few of them in line with our modern perceptions of it being a physical signal of warmth, enjoyment, or indeed of happiness. By the 17th century in Europe it was a well-established fact that the only people who smiled broadly, in life and in art, were the poor, the lewd, the drunk, the innocent, and the entertainment […] Showing the teeth was for the upper classes a more-or-less formal breach of etiquette."
"Malle Babbe" by Frans Hals, sometime between 1640 and 1646Public domain
In other words, to the Western sensibility, smiling was seen as undignified. If a painter did put a smile on the subject of a portrait, it was a notable departure from the norm, a deliberate stylistic choice that conveyed something about the artist or the subject.
Even the artists who attempted it had less-than-ideal results. It turns out that smiling is such a lively, fleeting expression that the artistically static nature of painted portraits didn't lend itself well to showcasing it. Paintings that did have subjects smiling made them look weird or disturbing or drunk. Simply put, painting a genuine, natural smile didn't work well in portraits of old.
As a result, the perception that smiling was an indication of lewdness or impropriety stuck for quite a while, even after Kodak created snapshot cameras that didn't have the long exposure time problem. Even happy occasions had people nary a hint of joy in the photographs that documented them.
Another reason why people didn't smile in old photos is that dental hygiene wasn't the same as it is today, and people may have been self-conscious about their teeth. “People had lousy teeth, if they had teeth at all, which militated against opening your mouth in social settings,” Angus Trumble, the director of the National Portrait Gallery in Canberra, Australia, and author of A Brief History of the Smile, said, according to Time.
Even wedding party photos didn't appear to be joyful occasions.Wikimedia Commons
Then along came movies, which may have changed the whole picture
So how did we end up coming around to grinning ear to ear for photos? Interestingly enough, it may have been the advent of motion pictures that pushed us towards smiling being the norm.
Photos could have captured people's natural smiles earlier—we had the technology for taking instant photos—but culturally, smiling wasn't widely favored for photos until the 1920s. One theory about that timing is that the explosion of movies enabled us to see emotions of all kinds playing out on screen, documenting the fleeting expressions that portraits had failed to capture. Culturally, it became normalized to capture, display and see all kind of emotions on people's faces. As we got more used to that, photo portraits began portraying people in a range of expression rather than trying to create a neutral image of a person's face.
Changing our own perceptions of old photo portraits to view them as neutral rather than grumpy or serious can help us remember that people back then were not a bunch of sourpusses, but people who experienced as wide a range of emotion as we do, including joy and mirth. Unfortunately, we just rarely get to see them in that state before the 1920s.
This article originally appeared last year.
Canva Photos
The Internet helped a man find his missing dog. But the family who rescued him didn't want to give him up.
Finding good, reliable dog sitting is difficult under normal circumstances. Who can you really trust to take care of your dog? Will they be safe? Will they be scared while you're gone? When you're a soldier in the US military deployed for months at a time, dog-care can turn into an actual nightmare very quickly.
No one knows this better than Paulo Silva, a US Navy soldier who was recently deployed on an aircraft carrier in the Middle East for eight months. While he was away, Silva trusted a relative to watch his five-year-old Golden Retriever and certified bestie, Archie.
When Silva returned home, excited to reunite with his best friend, he was shocked to find the dog gone.
Archie, a 5-year-old golden retriever, became the unwitting subject of a social media custody battle. Photo by Mitchell Luo on Unsplash
“A family member that was well-trusted felt they had no choice but to give away my dog,” Silva told the Asbury Park Press. “At no point was I told about it (before returning home) and I had asked time and time again about him." The relative told Silva that Archie was having trouble settling in, but the decision still came as a massive shock. Worse, Silva's relative couldn't or wouldn't provide him the contact information of the family he'd given Archie to. In interviews, Silva hasn't said much about the reasoning behind these cruel decisions. All he knew was he was scared and left scrambling.
Silva posted a desperate plea to Facebook for anyone with information to contact him. Then social media did what it always seems to do in stories like this one: it delivered.
The post went mega-viral, being shared all across different social and professional networks in the area, and before too long, Silva received tips about where he could find his dog. Not too long after that, Silva and Archie were joyously reunited.
What a perfect happy ending for this feel-good social media story, right? Well, not quite.
It's easy to root for the storybook ending, but there's another family at the other end of the story. For them, it's anything but a fairy tale.
When the tipster first reached out to Silva with Archie's whereabouts, there was one problem: the people who had taken Archie in didn't want to give him up and wouldn't respond to messages.
He had been adopted, apparently freely, by a young woman and her boyfriend when Silva's relative decided to find Archie a new home. In their minds, Archie belonged to them, fair and square, and after months of love and snuggles and care, they had bonded deeply with him. They were sorry for the situation Silva found himself in, but they weren't going to simply "roll over."
Silva then wrote an open letter to Archie's new family, pleading his case.
"This dog isn’t just a pet to me. He is my heart, my companion, and a piece of my soul that helped carry me through some of the hardest times in my life. We’ve been through everything together—before my deployment, during training, and through the toughest emotional battles. That kind of bond is irreplaceable," he wrote.
"I love this dog more than words can express—more than life itself. First, I want to say that I appreciate that you’ve cared for my dog. I have no doubt that you’re good people and that you’ve offered a safe and loving home. But I need you to know that this wasn’t supposed to happen. I was never asked, never informed, and never had the chance to speak up or say goodbye. I left for duty trusting that my dog would be waiting for me when I came home. I’m reaching out publicly not out of anger, but out of heartbreak. I am respectfully asking you to please consider returning my dog to me. I know this isn’t an easy request, and I understand that emotions may be involved on both sides—but I am pleading with you, not just as a veteran, but as someone who lost something deeply precious to them without any choice or voice in the matter."
According to the Asbury Press, Silva was considering legal action if the couple didn't return Archie.
Eventually, the woman and her boyfriend who had adopted Archie decided to return him to Silva. They were heartbroken about the decision.
Even worse, beyond just losing the dog they loved, Jamie Goldstein and her boyfriend were cast as villains in the now-viral story. They began receiving hate messages and public pressure to turn over the dog. While some people threw their support behind the couple's right to keep Archie, many more sent nasty messages and threats.
After they decided to send Archie back to his original home, Goldstein shared an emotional letter of her own on social media.
"He is the sweetest boy and everyone who has met him can attest to it. I love this dog with all my heart," she wrote. "Archie was never stolen, he was given to my boyfriend, we just loved him as our own. ... I can only imagine how Paulo felt when he came back from serving our country & didnt know where sweet Archie was. This feels like a mourning. I miss you so much already, I hope you are safe & getting all the love you deserve, baby Archie. We miss you so much."
Although the couple ultimately did the right thing, it's hard not to feel deeply for them and their loss. Their quick love for Archie was so apparent, and it's unfair that things unfolded the way they did.
As for Silva, he's incredibly grateful for the family that took Archie in and loved him for those many months.
"I do not see them as villains and you shouldn’t either," he wrote in another post. "I know their hearts were in the right place. Thank you both for loving Archie as your own. I will always be grateful for that. I will never stop showing you guys my love and support."
He even offered to arrange an "open door policy" so the couple could visit Archie any time they wanted.
While the story is full of debate and heartbreak, there is one clear winner: Archie. What a lucky pup to be so loved by two different families. If anything, the story speaks volumes about how quickly and powerfully pets can find a place in our hearts. It also ends with mutual kindness, both in the couple returning Archie and Silva handling the conflict with grace. It may not be your typical feel-good social media reunion, but it's got plenty of silver lining.
From Your Site Articles
- Golden Retriever with remarkable healing skills earns the total trust of a terrified kitten ›
- Golden Retriever's unbridled excitement over new dog bed is too sweet not to watch ›
- Lovable Golden Retriever follows maps trekker and photobombs over 1,000 locations ›
- Family brings home the wrong dog from daycare until their cats saved the day ›
Canva
An older man enjoys a fancy cigar. A younger man smokes a cigarette.
Comedian and writer Amy Poehler is the gift that keeps on giving. On her popular podcast Good Hang with Amy Poehler, she welcomes guests and has brilliantly funny and often insightful conversations. (Don't sleep on the episode when she had her dear friend Paul Rudd on. It's magical.)
On a recent show with Parks and Recreation creator Mike Schur, there's a clip of her breaking down how each generation relates to money. Straight to the point, she says, "The Boomers are all about money. Gen X is like IS it all about money? Millennials are like where IS the money? And Gen-Z is like what is money?" (She adds, "That's my bad stand-up about it.")
This is Impact YouTube page, Amy Poehlerwww.youtube.com
Hacky comedy or not, she's not wrong. Just under this short YouTube clip, there are over 3,000 comments, mostly from people who back up the claim. One notes, "Gen Z is paying more money for a car now than Boomers paid for their home."
One commenter jokingly (but also maybe accurately) adds, "Gen Alpha: WHY is money?"
On his TikTok page, Freddie Smith (@fmsmith319) references the clip and after acknowledging that Amy "totally nails it," he breaks it down even further in terms of how each generation's economy helped shape them. He states, "This is a true representation about how money has been declining over the past 40 or 50 years. The Boomers had such a big economic boom, so it was easier for them to accumulate money. 80 trillion dollars, the Boomer generation has–so of course, it's all about the money."
@fmsmith319 Boomers, Millennials and Gen Z take on money | @Good Hang with Amy Poehler
He moves on to the millennials. When you think about them, he says, "Of course, where is the money? It's because we were handed a road map at like 13 years old of exactly the steps we needed to take and someone pointed and said 'see that treasure chest? It's gonna be full of gold! Just follow the plan.' Well we followed the plan and here we are twenty years later. We open up the treasure chest and there's two f-ing coins in it."
"And then Gen Z-ers? What is money? They're going to work and they're getting paid direct deposit on Fridays and as soon as that money hits the account, it just goes automatically to their bills. They don't actually 'touch' money." He goes on to explain it would be no different for an employer to just pay in housing and/or food, because they don't actually see the money. "This is such a true representation of what we're all screaming about right now. What is going ON?"
(I'd just like to point out, as a Gen X-er, that he totally skipped over us—but we're used to it.)
Tom Cruise asks that you show him the money. Giphy Show Me the Money GIF
The comments here intensely agree. One notes, ""I mean millennials also lived in the world of UNPAID internships!! Boomers made us work for free… and we paid colleges for this experience."
Over on Reddit, many people joined up to discuss this take, with which nearly all agree. Though, again, we get a Gen Alpha joke, much needed in lightening the mood, "Gen Alpha is like 'Rawarr! Me no read! Must smash'."
Someone also ingeniously links to an old SNL sketch with, you guessed it, Amy Poehler, alongside Steve Martin and Chris Parnell. The gist of it? DON'T BUY STUFF.
Amy Poehler, Steve Martin, Chris Parnellwww.youtube.com, NBC Universal
A commenter here writes, "I show this in my financial literacy 30 class every semester when I introduce credit. It's such a simple concept, yet so hard for many to grasp. Teach them young and hopefully they'll make great financial choices when credit becomes available to them."
Another points out, "It's sad how many people need to hear this."
To be fair, it would seem some generations don't even have the option to buy or not to buy because all their money goes to rent.