2Q, 4Q, and Instinctive Drift

[More thoughts on the terms 2Q, 4Q, and instinctive drift from articles posted to the PGD list, somewhat edited for republication here]

Posted December 17, 2009, at 1:05 AM

On Dec 17, 2009, at 12:02 AM, higgins10000 wrote:

> Sorry to plead ignorance here but what is 2Q?

Hi, Brad. I'm not Randy, but I can answer that. "2Q" is a term that was invented by Alice Woodyard to distinguish between traditional dog training methods ("4Q") and those that don't use aversives.

Both 4Q and 2Q refer to the four operant conditioning quadrants, outcomes for behavior that affect the probability of future choices under the same circumstances: positive and negative reinforcement, positive and negative punishment.

"2Q" provides a useful alternative for those who feel the term "positive" is not an accurate description of our approach, since we do NOT use positive punishment, and we DO use negative punishment.

LL&L

Posted December 17, 2009, at 10:55 AM

On Dec 17, 2009, at 9:46 AM, Alice Woodyard wrote:

Another reason "positive" is not accurate is that field training using
traditional methods is also strongly positive due to all the rewards (birds)
that are intrinsic to the dog work. You can't get away from that positive
aspect of field work even if aversives are used to shape behaviors.

Great point, and one that I'm aware of though I sometimes forget to mention it.

If it weren't true, they'd both be 2Q methods, just different Qs. :0)

I'd like to put even more emphasis on "strongly" in your first sentence for the information of those who are not aware of it. Successful 2Q and 4Q retriever training are both based above all on the dog's intrinsic desire and ability to perform field retrieves, so the lion's share of the outcome that shapes future choices comes not from extrinsic reinforcers like treats and games of tug, but from the intrinsic reinforcement of doing the work itself. The trainer's extrinsic reinforcers add to that, especially with puppies, but they don't add much, and they add less the more the developing dog discovers within herself the joy of retrieving.

The idea of training a retriever for advanced field work and somehow eliminating intrinsic reinforcement, so that the dog is only responding to extrinsic reinforcers -- a concept that seems to dawn on every newbie "positive" trainer as a lightning bolt, one example having recently been discussed at length on this list -- is totally out of touch with the actual experience of training a retriever. First, the idea of "desensitizing" a dog to intrinsic reinforcers is as absurd as the idea of "desensitizing" a teenager to music, video games, and sexual awakening by flooding the teenager with those stimuli. Second, if you somehow did manage to kill birdiness in an individual dog, you'd have a broken dog who would stand no chance of meeting the standards of dogs who retrieve for the pure love of it. At Junior level tests and breed certifications, we occasionally see dogs who don't show intrinsic field-retrieving desire. This probably isn't because they were "desensitized"; they either weren't born with it or they haven't had enough experience for it to come out. We don't see dogs like that at the more advanced levels, because they can't do the work.

Unfortunately, the developing dog doesn't only discover within herself the joy of retrieving correctly. She also discovers within herself an instinct for undesirable behaviors that were never trained, never practiced, but rise up from inside and become increasingly attractive to her. Those are the behaviors that I call "instinctive drift", borrowing that term from the Keller's famous article "Misbehavior of Organisms". From my experience, instinctive drift is a far more pervasive and difficult challenge in training retrievers for field work than in other canine sports and other animal-training endeavors, precisely because the sport is based upon the dog doing what it was bred to do, inviting those instincts to awaken and grow with every retrieve.

LL&L