The excitement of cognitive psychology as a viable paradigm for contemporary research and application developed from a number of trends deeply imbedded in psychology’s past. In the twentieth century, these influences were clearly evident among the functionalists, the Gestalt movement, Tolman’s purposive behaviorism, as well as in the extended subfields of psychology, such as developmental, social, personality and clinical. In the latter part of the twentieth century, such specified advances as Bartlett’s schema theory, Hebb’s neural networks, and Broadbent’s filter model of attention provided cognitive psychology with substantive direction. The question of artificial intelligence contributed to a paradigm shift through the efforts of pioneers such as Turing and the logical theorist studies of Newell, Shaw and Simon, leading to what is described by some as the cognitive revolution. The seminal research of George Miller, Jerome Bruner, and Ulric Neisser gave cognitive science its form and substance. The question of the sustainability of the cognitive paradigm remains a topic for reflection.

Two conflicting views of the UK constitution exist: a Whitehall view, which treats ministers as the centre of the system and a Westminster view in which the House of Commons is central. In the former, British democracy is defined by elections to choose a Prime Minister. In the latter, elections choose a Parliament to which governments are accountable. Under united majority governments, the conflict remains hidden, but it emerges under minority or divided governments. The Brexit crisis was such a period. Its defining constitutional disputes – how far governments can act without Parliamentary approval, whether governments could close Parliament or veto bills, whether the Commons was justified in seizing control of its agenda, whether governments should continue after losing control of the House and whether the Fixed-term Parliaments Act changed conventions about confidence – all reflected aspects of the conflict between the two views. The Westminster theory gathered support in the Supreme Court and Commons, but the ultimate dénouement, a general election bringing to power a majority government, vindicated the Whitehall view. The crisis casts doubt on the Whitehall view’s viability in periods of political change, but also on whether Westminster politicians can make the Westminster view work.

The chapter provides an overview of literary predecessors whose influence is evident across Mailer’s work, but perhaps most notably in his early work: John Dos Passos, James T. Farrell, William Faulkner, D. H. Lawrence, Henry Miller, Theodore Dreiser, Herman Melville, John Steinbeck, Thomas Wolfe, and Leo Tolstoy, among others.

Following some preliminary remarks on the concept of secession and its status in international law, this chapter examines competing answers to two questions that any theory of state secession must address.First, what sort of actor enjoys a prima facie moral right to secede, and in virtue of what features or considerations does that actor do so?Second, on what particular territory is an actor with a right to secede permitted to exercise that right?It then evaluates arguments for and against several international legal norms that might be adopted to regulate unilateral secession, drawing on both moral theories of secession and empirically informed conjectures regarding the incentives those norms might create for various international and domestic actors.

Clinicians who hope to modify patients’ unhealthy use of marijuana face potential frustration and difficulty trying to engage people in meaningful dialogue. The stages of change outlined by Prochaska and Di Clemente provide a useful guide for understanding how to initiate conversation with someone addicted to marijuana, whether they are in the precontemplation, contemplation, preparation (for change), action or maintenance stage. Utilizing the stages of change to guide the approach to promoting behavioral change introduces clinicians to one of the most essential principles of motivational interviewing (MI), often described as “meeting patients where they are”. Developed by Miller and Rollnick, MI shifts the focus away from resistance and denial in order to focus instead on ambivalence and moves clinicians away from confrontation and toward a more collaborative approach that is less likely to stimulate a patient’s defenses. Engagement through empathy for patients’ suffering enables clinicians to increase the cognitive dissonance between their behavior and their goals. Ultimately, the practice of motivational interviewing is an art, and not merely a set of techniques, that requires clinicians to explore their fundamental attitudes toward addiction.