Techno & Other Determinisms

Questions of technological determinism remind me of similar dichotomies -- mind|body, nature|nurture, and so forth. The problem seems created by a misposing of the question. One asks whether a presumed factor in some change has all impact or no impact, or some impact; one measures the impact on change as though the factors were addeded incrementally. This misrepresents causal relationships.
The seems like something in the family of the "complex clause" fallacy. A couple of metaphors might clarify what I mean.
Consider factors like "technology" and "human nature" to speak very broadly, as multiplying against each other instead of aggregating. It becomes absurd to ask whether in the equation 3*2=6, the 3 or 2 is more important: There are two threes, three twos. Removing either nullifies the entire result. Similarly, ask oneself whether the length or breadth of a 2*3 table is more important. One might be tempted to say that the length is more important, since the # is greater, but how much length remains if one removes the width?
So researchers in many fields argue that whatever their favorite factor is determines or dominates influences on whatever phenomena they study. Outside of vested interests, the problem seems to go like this: If one assumes first causality, and then that all other factors one does not wish to study study remain as they are, then, clearly, all change is caused by whatever factor one studies.
A moral? Just because some factor does impact every single aspect of a given result does not mean that the result is not equally the product of more factors.
(And beware of the either-or dichotomy here. If a baseball flies over the fence as a home run, is that because there's a batter, a bat, a ball, a fence, the genetic character of the batter's parents, or because the batter grew up next to a vacant lot?)