What is the purpose of nostalgia?

[misgfool]

I was just listening a catchy tune, which was longing for the golden past. What is the evolutionary function of nostalgia?

 

[S_Happens]

Why does it have to serve a function? Seems to me that it could easily be an unintentional product of other inherant (human) capabilities.

 

[George Jones]

... sigh ... I remember a time when the value of nostalgia wasn't questioned ...

 

[LowlyPion]

I was just listening a catchy tune, which was longing for the golden past. What is the evolutionary function of nostalgia?

I'd guess it most likely has to do with mating and staying mated for next generation rearing purposes.

By remembering the good times - the flowering of a relationship - perhaps it encourages the continuation of the relationship when child-rearing is afoot and when only the stems remain?

Or with the off spring as they become more troublesome adolescents, maybe the memories of how cute they were gives them some extra grace to remain in the nest before getting the boot?

Of course it could be more basic in that we don't remember pain as well as happier things like say chocolate cake. If there was a vivid lifelong recollection of pain, would women ever have a second child?

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I don't think it serves a purpose. Fear, as in fear of the unknown serves a purpose. We look to the disasters of the future with fear because we don't know what is coming. We look to the disasters of the past with nostalgia because we already know how it turned out.

 

[tony134340]

I'd say because the past is known, it's easy to take comfort viewing it. It makes us happy and gives us positive feelings which are beneficial for survival. About the good things in life and what paths we should look to do find happiness. We can look back and know what was before and maybe a while after that moment so we can take comfort and contentment in the predictability. The present gives us less comfort because of the unknown.

Maybe you meant to ask what the purpose of remembering was. That's fairly obvious but my view, nostalgia is just the comfort we take in remembering what made us feel good along with the factor of predictability which makes us look back and sometimes over-exaggerate the good times.

 

[Nabeshin]

Why does it have to serve a function? Seems to me that it could easily be an unintentional product of other inherant (human) capabilities.

Agree.

It bugs me when people try to explain everything in terms of evolution and natural selection. It's powerful, but not omnipotent.

 

[tony134340]

Agree.

It bugs me when people try to explain everything in terms of evolution and natural selection. It's powerful, but not omnipotent.

Disagree.

For every cause, at least insofar as we can tell, there has to be an effect. We have these feelings for some reason. I guess we apparently have some evolutionary trash such as appendixes and such but something emotionally complex as nostalgic feelings, imho, seem to have a purposeful meaning.

 

[Nabeshin]

Disagree.

For every cause, at least insofar as we can tell, there has to be an effect. We have these feelings for some reason. I guess we apparently have some evolutionary trash such as appendixes and such but something emotionally complex as nostalgic feelings, imho, seem to have a purposeful meaning.

I don't want to take time thinking up a specific example that I think irrefutably has no biological function, but I want to suggest the idea of emergence. It seems to me entirely possible, and probable, that brain functions which independently might serve some strictly biological function can combine to create a capacity of some sort which does not serve a biological function.

 

[physics girl phd]

I'm not sure... but I wish I could get rid of that warm fuzzy feeling that I get from the characteristic smell of the physics buildings I've worked inside.

 

[Brilliant!]

It would be interesting to come up with study that could measure someone's satisfaction with their life in the present and, also, how often they feel nostalgic.

This is just speculation, but I'm willing to bet that the more dissatisfied you are with the present, the more likely you are to long for "the good 'ol days."

 

[tony134340]

I don't want to take time thinking up a specific example that I think irrefutably has no biological function, but I want to suggest the idea of emergence. It seems to me entirely possible, and probable, that brain functions which independently might serve some strictly biological function can combine to create a capacity of some sort which does not serve a biological function.

I'd agree but I don't think this is one of them, at least, in the whole.

 

[S_Happens]

I don't want to take time thinking up a specific example that I think irrefutably has no biological function, but I want to suggest the idea of emergence. It seems to me entirely possible, and probable, that brain functions which independently might serve some strictly biological function can combine to create a capacity of some sort which does not serve a biological function.

These are EXACTLY my thoughts as well. Very succinct.

Disagree.

For every cause, at least insofar as we can tell, there has to be an effect. We have these feelings for some reason. I guess we apparently have some evolutionary trash such as appendixes and such but something emotionally complex as nostalgic feelings, imho, seem to have a purposeful meaning.

The view of Nabeshin and I does not rule out causality, it simply allows for causes other than evolutional neccessity. I highlighted the last two words that show your own uncertainty. If you are only guessing, then you are unable to rule any other possibilities out. Don't get me wrong, I am not disallowing nostalgia to be an evolutionary neccessity, but I AM allowing other causes.

 

[Hurkyl]

I'm not sure... but I wish I could get rid of that warm fuzzy feeling that I get from the characteristic smell of the physics buildings I've worked inside.

Are you sure that's nostalgia?

 

[tony134340]

These are EXACTLY my thoughts as well. Very succinct.



The view of Nabeshin and I does not rule out causality, it simply allows for causes other than evolutional neccessity. I highlighted the last two words that show your own uncertainty. If you are only guessing, then you are unable to rule any other possibilities out. Don't get me wrong, I am not disallowing nostalgia to be an evolutionary neccessity, but I AM allowing other causes.

And hence why I express uncertainty, because I'm not entirely ruling that out either.

 

[misgfool]

... sigh ... I remember a time when the value of nostalgia wasn't questioned ...

Sorry about that chap, but questioning is a part of development.

 

[misgfool]

Of course it could be more basic in that we don't remember pain as well as happier things like say chocolate cake. If there was a vivid lifelong recollection of pain, would women ever have a second child?

I thought women have more children because, "Pain is momentary, but glory is eternal".

 

[Dadface]

If nostalgia is a sentimental affection for a period in the past then how long ago in the past are we talking about?If I forget about and then remember the nice cup of tea I had ten minutes ago can this recall be described as nostalgia?With nostalgia we tend to recall the good things and that helps to guide our future actions .I'm off to put the kettle on.

 

[zoobyshoe]

The view of Nabeshin and I does not rule out causality, it simply allows for causes other than evolutional neccessity. I highlighted the last two words that show your own uncertainty. If you are only guessing, then you are unable to rule any other possibilities out. Don't get me wrong, I am not disallowing nostalgia to be an evolutionary neccessity, but I AM allowing other causes.

Your phrase "evolutionary necessity" is unfortunate since it suggests that things can mutate in response to a need for certain traits, as if mutations could be caused by force of will. In fact, though, things mutate randomly and some mutations are advantageous, some are neutral, and some are disadvantages. It seems from the context of your post you understand and accept the latter, but that only makes your use of the phrase "evolutionary necessity" more confusing to me.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Sorry about that chap, but questioning is a part of development.

I have to go with misgfool on this one George. And lighten up. Tell a joke now and then.

(This post is in payment of an old debt.)

 

[misgfool]

(This post is in payment of an old debt.)

If this debt was related to me, for future reference, I take cash too.

 

[S_Happens]

Your phrase "evolutionary necessity" is unfortunate since it suggests that things can mutate in response to a need for certain traits, as if mutations could be caused by force of will. In fact, though, things mutate randomly and some mutations are advantageous, some are neutral, and some are disadvantages. It seems from the context of your post you understand and accept the latter, but that only makes your use of the phrase "evolutionary necessity" more confusing to me.

I am not using "evolutionary neccessity" to describe WHY mutation itself occurs, but to describe (in this case) an evolved trait that would be useful/advantageous/serve a specific function and therefore promote propagation of the species (ie a mutation that has ALREADY occurred and proves useful in a specific way). The OP, and others, are suggesting that nostalgia must be a function necessary to survival (at some point in human evolution), citing evolution as proof. The point I am trying to make is that it is very possible (and I believe more likely) that nostalgia is simply an emergent behavior, brought about by other inherant human traits.

 

[Redbelly98]

Hey, I'm going to toss out this little paradox:

What if evolution is true, but it's an evolutionary advantage not to believe it?

 

[zoobyshoe]

I am not using "evolutionary neccessity" to describe WHY mutation itself occurs, but to describe (in this case) an evolved trait that would be useful/advantageous/serve a specific function and therefore promote propagation of the species (ie a mutation that has ALREADY occurred and proves useful in a specific way).

"Necessity" is the problematic part of it, you see? Why not just say "evolutionary advantage"?

The OP, and others, are suggesting that nostalgia must be a function necessary to survival (at some point in human evolution), citing evolution as proof. The point I am trying to make is that it is very possible (and I believe more likely) that nostalgia is simply an emergent behavior, brought about by other inherant human traits.

This part of your post is clear.

 

[Garth]

Do you remember the good ole' days before nostalgia?

Garth

 

[svastikajla]

Why does it have to serve a function? Seems to me that it could easily be an unintentional product of other inherant (human) capabilities.

I was inclined to agree with this until I noticed that the whole 'what is the purpose of' in this sentence is effectively retroactive guessing at whim without any real basis to do so. The majority of these 'scientific theories' of 'why people have nostalgia', 'why "men" look at "women's" breasts' et cetera are just largely guessing at whim, ask yourself, is there any way to truly verify your own hypothesis on such questions.

A: The purpose of nostalgia is intrinsicly linked to the desire of man to create social inertia once it has found a working society.
B: Pfah! Nonsense, the purpose of nostalgia is all an experiment planted into us by Aliens from he planet No'rth-Kh'orea to observe us for scientific testing how we respond when one of us asks the question what it is for, can you not see this?

And there really isn't a way to falsify one or the other.

Hey, I'm going to toss out this little paradox:

What if evolution is true, but it's an evolutionary advantage not to believe it?

Then it's an evolutionary advantage not to believe it. There are more things which are 'true' which are an 'evolutionary advantage' to not believe. In fact, they are quite common, this is because ignorance is an evolutionary advantage 'ignorance is bliss', the mistake people often make with these things like 'the human genome is becoming weak' is that they fail to realize that their own opinion about 'good people' needn't concord with that of evolution. This is because evolution—of course—cares about one thing, ability to reproduce offspring that can again reproduce. I'm not sure about you but that's not really my own definite criterion on how much I value another man. The whole futuristic idea that man will evolve to startling intelligence is only fit for fiction, evolution does not lead to species who are 'advanced', it leads to species which are able to procreate in the environment they are put it. It's an evolutionary disadvantage to know a thing or two about physics it seems, physicists don't have that many children, I know few that even have a child wish.

 

[zoobyshoe]

The whole futuristic idea that man will evolve to startling intelligence is only fit for fiction, evolution does not lead to species who are 'advanced', it leads to species which are able to procreate in the environment they are put it.

Amen.

 

[tony134340]

Then it's an evolutionary advantage not to believe it. There are more things which are 'true' which are an 'evolutionary advantage' to not believe. In fact, they are quite common, this is because ignorance is an evolutionary advantage 'ignorance is bliss', the mistake people often make with these things like 'the human genome is becoming weak' is that they fail to realize that their own opinion about 'good people' needn't concord with that of evolution. This is because evolution—of course—cares about one thing, ability to reproduce offspring that can again reproduce. I'm not sure about you but that's not really my own definite criterion on how much I value another man. The whole futuristic idea that man will evolve to startling intelligence is only fit for fiction, evolution does not lead to species who are 'advanced', it leads to species which are able to procreate in the environment they are put it. It's an evolutionary disadvantage to know a thing or two about physics it seems, physicists don't have that many children, I know few that even have a child wish.

Good points but what is evolving that is deemed important? These physicists do leave behind more advanced information which you can kind of see us as. We evolve to carry down our code. They, as we all do, transfer code and carry it to others. We learn, we find code which is advantageous for this code to survive. I kind of see it as code adding to code. Any way, in some altruistic sense, without children, they are still playing a part in human evolution.

 

[svastikajla]

Good points but what is evolving that is deemed important? These physicists do leave behind more advanced information which you can kind of see us as. We evolve to carry down our code. They, as we all do, transfer code and carry it to others. We learn, we find code which is advantageous for this code to survive. I kind of see it as code adding to code. Any way, in some altruistic sense, without children, they are still playing a part in human evolution.

Well, another common mistake about evolution is that people often fail to realize it has nihil præcognition whatsoever, it doesn't plan ahead. Hence the vast litter of rudimentary organs and in time life will become extinct solely because evolution cannot really cope any more with all the rudimentary organs it has acquired down its path.

The wonderful thing of humans having cognitive language is its diesel function. It was probably only evolved to warn more effectively for prædators and battle tactics discussion in Leeroy Jenkins style. The point about it is that it enables us to pass on our ideas to others, in other species, every time a new infant is born it starts again to discover all things, not in our case, we learn what our parents know and teach what we know to our children. Even studying physics is still building on knowledge some cro magnon invented 50 000 years back. This is kind of becoming explosively lately, atomic bombs and all. LaTeX and the lot which will probably one day lead to our and a lot of other species extinction.

They play part in human evolution all right, but no matter how beneficial the knowledge they create may be for other humans to procreate, their genes still do not procreate so it shan't lead to more physicists in the genepool.

 

[S_Happens]

"Necessity" is the problematic part of it, you see? Why not just say "evolutionary advantage"?

I see your point and agree with you, although we'd have to know the purpose of nostalgia to determine whether it was a neccessity or advantage, if it is resultant of evolution. I believe the strong, confident language used (must, have, etc) in the argument for it being a result of evolution prompted me to use neccessity over advantage.