Hull, in his introduction of the term interactor, observes that Dawkins 'theory has replicators interacting with their environments in two distinct ways: they produce copies of themselves, and they influence their own survival and the survival of their copies through the production of secondary products that ultimately have phenotypic expression. ❋ Lloyd, Elisabeth (2005)
This approach is clearly not equivalent to the approach to units of selection characterized as the interactor approach. ❋ Lloyd, Elisabeth (2005)
We might need to use terms such as "interactor," "vehicle," or "target" to describe groups in this case, but we don't need to tinker with the concept of genes as "replicators." ❋ Unknown (2009)
Others consider that the interactor is the meme itself (Blackmore 1999) or that the meme is the selected cultural hereditable information just as Williams '“evolutionary gene” is the selected genetic hereditable information, and the memetic interactor is the repertoire of behaviors it elicits (Wilkins ❋ Hull, David (2008)
According to Professor Anne Norris, an "interactor" can literally jump into a scenario by wearing a specially designed motion-capture suit.
❋ Unknown (2010)
If she doesn't feel like doing the traveling to accomplish all the interacting necessary (and she is a dynamite interactor with readers of all ages!), then I think that Linda Sue Park, Lois Lowry or Katherine Paterson would all be wonderful choices. ❋ Roger Sutton (2009)
Not surprisingly, I once thought about becoming a psychologist, but soon realized I was more suited to the role of observer than interactor. ❋ Unknown (2008)
The Contraries Machine is a hypermedia device that allows the reader/interactor to not only read verbal and visual together, but also to read Innocence and Experience together, synoptically, in virtual space. ❋ Unknown (2005)
Janet Murray suggests that with virtual media, the reader/interactor “creates juxtapositions that are intentionally open to multiple meanings” (160). ❋ Unknown (2005)
Dawkins 'lack of consideration of the interactor definition of a unit of selection leads to two grave problems with his views. ❋ Lloyd, Elisabeth (2005)
Note that the “interactor question” does not involve attributing adaptations or benefits to the interactors, or indeed, to any candidate unit of selection. ❋ Lloyd, Elisabeth (2005)
Here the evolving unit is understood to be the developing system as a whole, privileging neither the replicator nor the interactor. ❋ Lloyd, Elisabeth (2005)
Discussions of these issues within philosophy have been muted of late due to the influence of genic pluralism (see section 3.4) which regards the entire interactor debate as a mistake. ❋ Lloyd, Elisabeth (2005)
The new "genic pluralism," as Sterelny and Kitcher call it, appears to let one bypass the interactor question, by, in effect, turning genes into interactors. ❋ Lloyd, Elisabeth (2005)
The expected fitness of the interactor is commonly expressed in terms of genotypic fitness parameters, that is, in terms of the fitness of combinations of replicators; hence, interactor success is most often reflected in and counted through, replicator success. ❋ Lloyd, Elisabeth (2005)
The view he is criticizing assumes that the individual organism is the interactor, and the beneficiary, and the manifestor of adaptation. ❋ Lloyd, Elisabeth (2005)
The pluralists seem to be arguing against the utility of the notion of the interactor in studying the selection process. ❋ Lloyd, Elisabeth (2005)
As we shall see, the most common error made in interpreting many of the interactor-based approaches is that the presence of an interactor at a level is taken to imply that the interactor is also a manifestor of an adaptation at that level. ❋ Lloyd, Elisabeth (2005)
Ultimately, however, both Williams and Maynard Smith recognized the significance of the distinction between the interactor question and the manifestor-of-an-adaptation question. ❋ Lloyd, Elisabeth (2005)
