Form 14 317: Fill & Download for Free

First, I suggest reading Chapter 5 of Haier, R. J. (2017). The Neuroscience of Intelligence, Cambridge University Press. It discusses the attempts to boost intelligence and concludes that it can’t be done with present technology.There have been demonstrations showing that working memory can be trained with the result that scores on tests of working memory increase. When the trained people were given tests of other components of intelligence, they showed no improvement. More importantly, there were no changes in their lives that indicated improved intellectual functioning.The initial paper that claimed intelligence increases from N-back training spawned numerous attempts to replicate the finding. It did not replicate. Eventually the methodology of the first paper was shown to be defective.Psychological Research/ February 2015/ Does working memory training have to be adaptive? Claudia C. von Bastian, Anne EschenAbstractThis study tested the common assumption that, to be most effective, working memory (WM) training should be adaptive (i.e., task difficulty is adjusted to individual performance). Indirect evidence for this assumption stems from studies comparing adaptive training to a condition in which tasks are practiced on the easiest level of difficulty only [cf. Klingberg (Trends Cogn Sci 14:317–324, 2010)], thereby, however, confounding adaptivity and exposure to varying task difficulty. For a more direct test of this hypothesis, we randomly assigned 130 young adults to one of the three WM training procedures (adaptive, randomized, or self-selected change in training task difficulty) or to an active control group. Despite large performance increases in the trained WM tasks, we observed neither transfer to untrained structurally dissimilar WM tasks nor far transfer to reasoning. Surprisingly, neither training nor transfer effects were modulated by training procedure, indicating that exposure to varying levels of task difficulty is sufficient for inducing training gains.The real reason that WM cannot boost intelligence, when operating alone, is that virtually all of g is accounted for by biological factors that are very unlikely to change as a result of training. For example, fractional anisotropy varies with intelligence, but is basically the hard wiring of the busses in the brain. The sizes and structures of various brain regions are similarly unlikely to change. For example, the corpus callosum has structures and cross-sections that vary by sex and which are related to g. Even less likely to change are such factors as nerve conduction velocity, the number of neurons in an individual brain, brain pH, the level of myelination, and (recently reported) chemical balances in specific regions of the brain. When g is examined by a wide variety of methods, it turns out to be biological, not reflecting any form of experience (other than the obvious rare extremes).Early reports of the correlation between g and WM (around 2003-4) showed very high correlation coefficients. They were so high that people wondered if g might be WM. This was later shown to be inaccurate and one of the reasons was low N. Yes, WM matters, but it matters in context with a range of other variables, many of which are more basic (down to the cell and molecule level) than WM.

If the Tories win just 310 seats then that will be the end for Johnson.The other parties will allow Corbyn to become PM because the alternative is much, much worse.After the election on Dec 12th Parliament does not meet immediately. In 2007 the Select Committee on the Modernisation of the House of Commons recommended having an interval of 12 days between polling day and the first meeting of Parliament, although this has been changed in the past[1]. Then there is the problem of Christmas. I doubt that Parliament will return on the 25th December. I shall assume Parliament meets on December 18th.If there is no single party with a majority then Johnson continues as PM until Parliament has met and his party has been defeated in a Vote Of No Confidence. If, as is likely, the Tories lose a VONC then we enter into the horse-trading period. Assume this starts December 20th.From that date there is a 14 day period during which any grouping of MPs can try to form a government that they believe can pass a VONC. If Corbyn can find 317 supporters (enough to beat the combined Tory/DUP alliance) then he forms the government and becomes PM. But that is almost certainly going to require LibDem support (Labour 240, SNP 52, Greens 2, Plaid Cymru 5, Others 5 - not enough). The 14 day period ends on Jan 3rd 2020.If the LibDems do not support Corbyn then there is another election. At a date chosen by Johnson. He will not be able to choose any date before 29th January. He could choose 6th February.We leave the EU with no deal on Jan 31st.If we reach the situation you describe - Tories 310, Labour 240 - then the others will have to choose between installing Corbyn as a temporary PM or crashing out of the EU with no deal.I have no doubt that Corbyn would become PM.Please note that stupid rants about how an eternity of being outside the EU with no deal will be much better than a Corbyn-led minority government (that would be incapable of passing any of the laws that the Tory press say would follow) that would be in power for a maximum of five year, will be deleted.Footnotes[1] Political and Constitutional Reform

Even without the DUP, it might still be possible for the Conservatives to get the Queen’s Speech passed.There are 317 Conservative MPs, not including the Speaker.That leaves 332 other Members.Sinn Fein hold seven seats, but will not attend or vote.That’s 325.If the DUP decide not to back the Tories, they could still abstain, which would - just - be enough to allow the Queen’s Speech to pass by 317–315.If that doesn’t happen, then the government has 14 days to win a “motion of confidence” or another election will be held. It is possible in this period for the leader of the opposition to attempt to form a government and put his or her own Queen’s Speech before Parliament. In this case, Jeremy Corbyn would have the opportunity. The Conservatives would then have a choice of either voting that down and ensuring another election, at which they would be in serious danger of losing even more seats to an enraged public, or to allow it to pass and buy time serving in opposition (but with a majority over the government) before making their own motion of no confidence when they felt an election might help them regain power in their own right.