103
" In ancient Indo-European (...), the word *er* means "to move," "to set in motion," or simply "to go." (...) That root gave rise to the Latin verb *errare*, meaning to wander or, more rakishly, to roam. The Latin, in turn, gave us the English word "erratic", used to describe movement that is unpredictable or aimless. And, of course, it gave us "error." From the beginning, then, the idea of error has contained a sense of motion: of wandering, seeking, going astray. "
― Kathryn Schulz , Being Wrong: Adventures in the Margin of Error
110
" The couples counselor Harville Hendrix has written that the entire experience of falling in love can be distilled down to just four characteristic emotions. The first, he says, is a feeling of recognition—the thing that makes you say to your newfound love (the quotes are his), “I know we’ve just met, but somehow I feel as though I already know you.” The second is a feeling of timelessness: “Even though we’ve only been seeing each other for a short time, I can’t remember when I didn’t know you.” The third is a feeling of reunification: “When I’m with you, I no longer feel alone; I feel whole, complete.” The fourth is a feeling of necessity: “I can’t live without you.” This is Aristophanes all over again. We speak of our partners as if they were a long-lost part of ourselves—and, accordingly, we are certain that they will be with us forever. We know they will never cheat on us. We know that we will never cheat on them. We say that we have never felt so understood; we say that nothing has ever felt so right.
What is remarkable about this idea of love is how deeply entrenched it is—in our hearts as well as our culture—even as it utterly fails to correspond to reality. We fall out of love left and right. We question whether we were really in it in the first place. We cheat and are cheated on. We leave and are left. We come to believe that we never truly knew our lover after all. We look back on our passion in the chilly dawn of disenchantment—in the after-afterglow—and are so baffled by our conduct that we chalk it up to something like temporary insanity. "
― Kathryn Schulz , Being Wrong: Adventures in the Margin of Error
112
" Structurally, then, errors of love are similar to errors in general. Emotionally, however, they are in a league of their own: astounding, enduring, miserable, incomprehensible. True, certain other large-scale errors can rival or even dwarf them; we’ve gotten a taste of that in recent chapters. But relatively few of us will undergo, for example, the traumatic and total abandonment of a deeply held religious belief, or the wrongful identification of an assailant. By contrast, the vast majority of us will get our hearts seriously broken, quite possibly more than once. And when we do, we will experience not one but two kinds of wrongness about love. The first is a specific error about a specific person—the loss of faith in a relationship, whether it ended because our partner left us or because we grew disillusioned. But, as I’ve suggested, we will also find that we were wrong about love in a more general way: that we embraced an account of it that is manifestly implausible. The specific error might be the one that breaks our heart, but the general one noticeably compounds the heartache. A lover who is part of our very soul can’t be wrong for us, nor can we be wrong about her. A love that is eternal cannot end. And yet it does, and there we are—mired in a misery made all the more extreme by virtue of being unthinkable.
We can’t do much about the specific error—the one in which we turn out to be wrong about (or wronged by) someone we once deeply loved. (In fact, this is a good example of a kind of error we can’t eliminate and shouldn’t want to.) But what about the general error?
Why do we embrace a narrative of love that makes the demise of our relationships that much more shocking, humiliating, and painful? There are, after all, less romantic and more realistic narratives of love available to us: the cool biochemical one, say, where the only heroes are hormones; the implacable evolutionary one, where the communion of souls is supplanted by the transmission of genes; or just a slightly more world-weary one, where love is rewarding and worth it, but nonetheless unpredictable and possibly impermanent—Shakespeare’s wandering bark rather than his fixèd mark. Any of these would, at the very least, help brace us for the blow of love’s end.
But at what price? Let go of the romantic notion of love, and we also relinquish the protection it purports to offer us against loneliness and despair. Love can’t bridge the gap between us and the world if it is, itself, evidence of that gap—just another fallible human theory, about ourselves, about the people we love, about the intimate “us” of a relationship. Whatever the cost, then, we must think of love as wholly removed from the earthly, imperfect realm of theory-making. Like the love of Aristophanes’ conjoined couples before they angered the gods, like the love of Adam and Eve before they were exiled from the Garden of Eden, we want our own love to predate and transcend the gap between us and the world. "
― Kathryn Schulz , Being Wrong: Adventures in the Margin of Error
120
" In an odd reversal of the usual state of affairs, when it comes to these existential issues, the bigger and more important the belief, the less it pays to be right. That’s why, as I’ve said, the goal of therapy isn’t necessarily to make our beliefs more accurate; it is to make them more functional. Ronnie Janoff-Bulman, the psychologist, has even argued that “a key to the good life might well be illusions at our deepest, most generalized level of assumptions and accuracy at the most specific, least abstract levels. "
― Kathryn Schulz , Being Wrong: Adventures in the Margin of Error
