#8 — At the Intersections — July 11, 2026

The relationship between a person and their technology is less a hierarchy and more a continuous loop of influence. Exploring these intersections between tools and human activity is the focus of this issue of ComplexityPod. We begin with the act of improvisation. This week, we're looking at the connection between the tools we use and the actions that result from them. Right, it’s a theme that shows up in very different places. We'll touch on creative improvisation, online identity, and even corporate finance. And then we'll turn to how we define and explain patterns of global violence, where the perpetrators sometimes see their actions as a moral pursuit. Let's start with improvisation. There's a common idea that improvisation is the opposite of technology—one is spontaneous and human, the other is rigid and mechanical. But work from Jonathan De Souza challenges that. It suggests we shouldn't see them as a hierarchy, but as a network of concepts. What does that mean, a network? How does that work in practice? The idea is that improvisation isn't something that just comes from a single person's genius. It emerges from the interaction between a person's body, the technologies they're using, and the environment they're in. The research looks at case studies in both music performance and teaching to show this. So the technology—whether it's a musical instrument or a teaching tool—isn't a constraint on improvisation, it's actually part of what makes it possible. It’s a reciprocal relationship. Exactly. The tool and the action are intertwined. Which brings us to another kind of tool: social media. Research with Mark Cleveland looks at this through the lens of the Indian diaspora in the United States and Canada, exploring how identity is navigated online. The study tracks the interplay between social media use and four different aspects of identity: ethnic identity, acculturation, cosmopolitanism, and identification with global consumer culture. And then it connects those identity factors to actual behaviors. So, do they lead to things like materialism, or social media addiction? That's the question. The findings showed that all four of those identity constructs did influence how people used social media. And in turn, social media use was a strong predictor of the consumer behaviors they studied. So there's a clear pathway from identity, through the tool of social media, to a specific outcome. What's also different here is the methodology. Instead of comparing different ethnic groups, the research makes comparisons within a single ethnicity but across different contexts. Which helps explain why people's adaptation can go in such different directions. It shows how the environment and the context of acculturation can lead to positive outcomes, or to things like materialism and addiction. Let's follow this thread of tools and outcomes into corporate finance. The tool, in this case, is a company's carbon dioxide reduction strategy. And the outcome is shareholder value. Work with Jury Gualandris looked at corporate announcements in the U.S. over a decade to see which of these strategies actually benefit a firm's value. And it found a clear hierarchy. Some strategies actively create value. Right. Redesigning products and production processes—fundamental changes to the business—those were associated with an increase in shareholder value. But what about the more common, maybe easier approaches? Like investing in green transportation or renewable energy for buildings? Those had neutral effects. Shareholders didn't reward them, but they didn't punish them either. And then there were strategies that actively destroyed value. Correct. Investing in carbon capture and storage was found to hurt shareholder value. And just buying carbon credits was generally neutral, unless it was announced by itself, with no other strategy. In that case, it could also destroy value. So the message to corporations is that these emission control tools don't have to damage the company's value, but they have to be part of a bigger picture. They should complement prevention efforts, not just be a standalone fix. Finally, we turn to a much more difficult tool to analyze: violence used as a means of social control. Work with Joseph Michalski begins by drawing a line between two types. There's predatory violence, which is just using force for personal gain. And then there's what he calls moralistic violence. This is where perpetrators believe they are addressing a grievance, that their actions are a justified response to some kind of wrongdoing. And terrorism is presented as one form of this moralistic violence. To study it, though, you need a very clear and objective definition. The one proposed is very precise. It describes terrorism as 'a unilateral form of self-help involving aggrieved non-state actors who engage in the covert use or threat of violence directed mainly against civilians or noncombatants in the service of broader ideological aims.' Each part of that definition is doing specific work to separate terrorism from other kinds of violence, based on a set of six characteristics. And the point of this is to build a framework that allows for an objective, empirical explanation of global patterns of terrorism, moving beyond subjective labels to create a real, analytical tool. That concludes this week's issue. We will have more research summaries for you next week. Thanks for listening to ComplexityPod.