The Logic of Psychology
Peter McQuaig
Tellwell Talent (2025)
ISBN 978-1779625847
Peter McQuaig is a past president of the consulting firm, McQuaig Institute. He has headed up research and development of psychological assessment methods that have broken new ground in their validity and comprehensiveness. He is a graduate of the University of Toronto, in psychology. He has long studied areas of science and philosophy related to physical science as well as social science and psychology. The Logic of Psychology has important implications for numerous subject areas of science, social science, psychology, philosophy, and for everyday life.
Hi Peter. Welcome to Reader Views! What is The Logic of Psychology about, and what was your inspiration behind writing this book?
It’s about how the psychological essentially works.
As a psychology student, I was struck by the disorderliness of the subject. What was presented was just a collection of ideas and empirical findings, without a ‘basis,’ or conceptual framework to give it coherence. I was very curious about this grand yet unwieldy subject that showed little inclination to address the essence of its subject matter – human nature. Psychology seemed to be flailing, in stark contrast to physics, which over a long recent historical period had had incredible success. So there was the persistent question, “why??,” and clearly there was the need for a serious attempt to bring order to the subject that bears on so much in life.
Your book blends psychology and philosophy. Why did you feel it was important to approach the study of the mind through a philosophical lens?
Well logic as a topic is listed under philosophy. It is actually ‘in between’ philosophy and science… and until a few centuries ago science was simply part of philosophy. In my endeavor to infer and explicate order, I was unconcerned with the categories, “philosophy” and “psychology.” What you’re asking leads into a discussion of rationality versus empiricism, a big topic, which is discussed in the book.
Most everyone understands that science relates to the psychological differently than to the physical – and that the subject matter of psychology is different than what is studied in physics. The point from the book is not that these domains are different and so have to be treated differently. It is that the logic – the key to accessing a subject productively to allow for acceleration of its progress, is very different in each case.
You emphasize that understanding doesn’t always require precise measurements. How does this change the way we think about psychology?
There is an important and often overlooked distinction between knowing and understanding, yet the two are very interrelated. And this mirrors much else about the order to things. So yes, having an appreciation for this is helpful in relating productively to psychological subject matter. To respond to your question, knowing has emphasis on precision, whereas understanding has emphasis on coherence. And precision corresponds with measurement, coherence with meaning. There is a complementarity between the two. In our present culture, we are very focused on acquiring knowledge, generally over-focused on it. This is not without good reason. We are pressured to have so much knowledge, especially for practical purposes. The problem is that we easily become over-focused on knowing, at the expense of understanding. As critical as knowing is, understanding is even more so, and it has a very different character. We tend to undervalue it compared with knowledge and it is more difficult to acquire.
One of your central goals is building a new vocabulary. What gap did you see in the language we usually use to talk about psychology?
I would not describe it as seeing gaps. I saw that ordinary language in our descriptions has built-in disorder. I also found ordinary language could be supported effectively by a supplementary meta-language allowing us to ‘zoom-in’ – to view more closely, clearly and with farther reach.
You write that ordinary language is “riddled with ambiguities and incongruities.” How do these issues affect the way we understand ourselves and others?
Pervasive ambiguities and incongruities diminish our understanding, to one degree or other, dependent on how seriously we take the language at issue, and dependent on the context.
If we have much understanding and a confidence from this, we are able to ‘see through’ language where need be, that is, use it effectively as we intend rather than be misled by it. Since understanding ourselves and others is challenging to begin with, the lessening of understanding easily begets misunderstandings rather than furthering understanding.
Can you share an example from the book where your framework reshapes how we’d normally describe a psychological situation?
There are all kinds of examples, and some in this volume, but it is mostly dedicated to ‘laying down basic planks’ of the logic. Subsequent volumes focus more on application. I’ll first say something about the background… The purpose of the book is to introduce the logic to the psychological, to demonstrate that it is real and has a certain character. Until now we have presumed there is only logic in the familiar sense, the logic of syllogisms and of mathematical reasoning (as described in textbooks on logic).
The point is that from this introduction and demonstration you’ll probably be disappointed if you expected to gain quick insights, as a reviewer wrote. And I agree. I’ll use the analogy of martial arts to give a context. By taking up karate or aikido, you’re not going to suddenly have proficiency in self-defense. For one thing you naturally have ‘bad habits’ related to physical combat that it will take a while to unlearn. You will only acquire combat proficiency gradually over time through a lot of practice.
When you consider two people in a physical fight, and this speaks to your question, we ordinarily think first and foremost in terms of the size, weight, strength, agility and athleticism of the parties. And this physically-based reference frame is valid, as far as it goes. It is not unimportant. Yet notice the way our perspective shifts when we adopt the well-ordered martial arts perspective. We can call it the psychologically-based reference frame.
Through this lens, first and foremost we consider: demeanor, composure, wherewithal and intent, specifics related to technique and tactics. For the martial artist, size and weight and physical strength come into play secondarily. Why? There’s a whole ‘science’ behind karate and aikido. So it is all about proficiency and mastery in application of the science. A well-schooled martial artist can easily defeat a much larger untrained opponent.
What this suggests – and is shown to be valid – is that this second perspective, in the markedly increased sophistication it introduces, holds far more veracity and potential power than the first perspective. When acquired aptly, seriously and thoroughly, this second reference frame scan be called on reliably to give the martial artist efficacy of intent. This translates into combat effectiveness, despite the specific limitations the practitioner may have.
Now this is just an analogy, and as such is limited… but when one ‘dons the lens’ of psychologic, which is not as easy as it sounds… similarly one has a different, more sophisticated general perspective.
The subtitle mentions “Science at Large & Everyday Life.” How do you see those two realms connecting in your work?
Well science is about inquiring into, studying and discovering things. Everyday life is about relating to the hurly burly of life’s issues /problems, and pursuing opportunities. So naturally we have much to gain by drawing on science – then applying its findings in everyday life. As regards connecting, science is the arena for study; everyday life is the arena for applying its findings and what we’ve learned.
What is meant by science at large, you might ask? This is science in an expanded sense that is peripherally about phenomena, but centrally about ‘the order to things.’ Here I refer to how things work in general across disciplines and issues, and this is first and foremost a-phenomenal. (The order /ordering of things is unobservable yet central with respect to overt phenomena, which is peripheral.) This is obvious as regards physics and what is limited to physical phenomena. Yet this has been perplexing as regards psychological phenomena, termed a-phenomena, which appear to have an indeterminate, unordered, often disorderly, character.
Our sense of our own agency and the unorder of the psychological, give us our experience of free will. This is not illusory. And we sometimes experience a high degree of free will, and often comparatively much less. The psychological realm is simply subject to a different type of order than that of the strictly determined physical world. As the psychological creatures we are, the more perceptibility we have of this express order that is applicable, the more empowered we are to pursue real-life in a way that fulfills, or works optimally, for us.
You distinguish between advancing knowledge and advancing understanding. What’s the difference, and why is that distinction important?
As I said above regarding knowledge and understanding, this distinction is an important one, as it mirrors a great deal about the order to things and ‘how things work’ in general.
This is subtitled Volume 1. What foundation are you laying here, and what might readers expect in future volumes?
I don’t know how to say something succinct to answer the first part, but regarding subsequent volumes…they will delve into consciousness (that is of much interest today), theories in science and throwing new light onto them, also the underside of our nature that is so problematic and seemingly at odds with our nature. More topics too…
Mathematics is often called a logical system. In what ways do you see parallels between your work in psychology and mathematics?
The logic of mathematics is a good part of first order logic, and yes this is parallel to what is distinct as second order logic, psychologic, which is not mathematical. Both first and second order logics however are of the metaconceptual. That is, they do not exist in the real-world, but exist very substantively in the metaconceptual realm. They have great applicability to the real-world and real-life, and we are so fortunate to derive the great benefit that we do from them. Without first order logic we would not have measurement, and without second order logic we would not have meaning.
Someone will say: we’re just now being introduced to second order /psychological logic, yet we’ve always had meaning. This is true, we’ve always had meaning. And we have always had meaning because we apprehend second order logic implicitly. Psychologic simply makes this logic explicit. This advances it considerably…
Do you think psychology has become too focused on data and measurement at the expense of conceptual clarity?
This is a real softball question. Sounds like you’ve read the book lol! Absolutely. You can even infer this from my answers above. Particularly in postmodernity, we have the real problem of so much conceptual haze. We have such an assortment of concepts, many of which contain great value, yet taken together they generate much incongruity. And we have had no reliable means to satisfactorily beget clarity from the byproduct of this conceptual haze.
The clarity I refer to here is the jump-off point for so much else we much need as individuals and societally…for example, creative acumen, dedication…
Consider mathematics as a ‘toolset,’ and language as a different sort of ‘toolset.’ Schematics is a meta-language ‘toolset’ based on second order, parallel to how mathematics employs first order /modern logic.
How might your conceptual vocabulary help people address real-world challenges such as depression, achievement, or relationships?
Wow, that’s a big question. The challenges of depression, achievement and relationships are of great interest to people, and there is such a need to address these in a way that’s very helpful. I want to only speak very generally now, as there is much on these topics under self-help and self-development. As I suggest above, all of this falls under “application,” and is not the focus of Vol. 1.
Speaking generally however, there is a major psychologic concept, perceptibility. The meaning of this has correspondence to the ordinary language meaning of the word yet has second order comprehensiveness. Insofar as your perceptibility is ‘high’ – is both ‘dialed-up’ and disposed innately and developmentally to be ‘high – you are positioned to see how to ‘rise to’ a challenge such as depressive-tendency and how it applies in your particular case.
This may for example involve having the wherewithal to seek help, and having a good sense regarding the best way to pursue this. You may discern that in your case a form of psychoanalysis is preferable to a cognitive-behavioral approach. Or you may discern that confronting a colleague in a ‘hard conversation’ would do much to remedy things, but that you have been avoiding doing so.
Who did you have in mind as your audience—students, professionals, or curious everyday readers?
The intended audience is first and foremost academic professionals in philosophy of science, and social science. I’d anticipate that many in this community would be keenly interested in a new logic principally applicable to the psychological. This may be a small community right now, I don’t know…
Your work suggests clarity of thought begins with clarity of language. What role do you see education playing in developing this skill?
You’ve given a good example right here. The words “thought” and “begin” carry ambiguity, which is a hindrance in this context where we are attempting to ‘zoom-in’ to apprehend ‘the order of things.’ That said, from a real-life standpoint… in an everyday discourse way, yes, it’s fair enough to say what you say here about clarity of thought.
I would say…clarity of thought begins with perceptibility of the psychological terrain beneath language and thought. Insofar as this perceptibility is high resolution (‘high’), we will find it natural and easy to employ language with efficacy to convey our intents through thinking and communicating. We will have clarity. But insofar as our perceptibility is weak, as it can be for many reasons, and affords us only low resolution (‘low’), language is as much a hindrance as a help. We feel a perplexity as we struggle with unclarity.
Education currently plays no role in developing this ability. It could play a very important role in the future however.
Some argue ambiguity in language makes it richer and more adaptable. How would you respond to that idea?
I agree that ordinary language with its ambiguity is very rich and adaptable. I do not agree though that it is the ambiguity that gives it its richness and adaptability. To be sure, in many contexts, such as in literature and most everyday conversation, you would want to leave language as it is. It would not need adapting, for in these contexts there is no concern regarding the underlying ‘order of things.’
Were there particular philosophers, psychologists, or linguists who influenced your approach?
Early on I was inspired by and /or influenced by Einstein, Freud, Kierkegaard, Sartre, and then later on, Berkely, Hume, Kant.
Do you see your work as bridging the gap between academic theory and everyday life?
Good academic theory is already doing this. But yes, I view my work as doing a lot of ‘gap bridging.’ For example, it offers a bridge between analytic and continental philosophy, between materialism and idealism. It also offers bridges between science, philosophy and ‘spirituality.’ I know this sounds like a lot of bridging, but employing the meta-concepts, one can discern this bridgework, and begin to discern it without a lot of practice. As one recognizes and takes account of the meta-concept interrelations, a transparency ‘opens-up.’
If readers could take away just one central insight from The Logic of Psychology, what would you want it to be?
That’s a tough question. I’ll first turn it around. If there was just one central insight from mathematics to be taken away, what would it be? I would say, “it is the way it applies to physicality in such an extraordinary, surprisingly effective way (when applied correctly).” And although second order logic is so different in character from the first order logic of mathematics, I suggest the reader could take away a similar central insight, which is “how psychologic applies in an extraordinary, surprisingly effective way to the psychological realm (when applied well).
Keep in mind too, that math has developed gradually over such a lengthy span of time, many, many centuries, and schematics powered by psychologic has not even begun as a formal discipline. So mathematics is very sophisticated, while schematics is at a very early stage.
This brings up something else. Mathematics is an abstraction, and as such is separate from the real-world. By contrast psychologic is imperceptibly ‘woven in’ to real-life. It is integral with human nature in a deeper way than is mathematics. We can say that it is integral with human nature in a parallel way to how mathematics is integral with nature. Due to this, we already relate to psychologic to a degree, in an intuitive or implicit way. We have a degree of familiarity, yet we have lacked the explication to give us clarity, which very much helps to reliably guide our understanding.
What’s next for you—are you working on the next volume or pursuing other projects?
The next volume is written, but I just have to edit it, etc.
CONNECT WITH THE AUTHOR!
Website: https://petermq.com/