An unfamiliar decision can still have a rationale

What misconception distorts how people explain historical decisions?

Not understanding a decision's rationale does not establish that its makers had none; their reasoning still needs investigation.

A decision can look irrational when the observer does not understand the reasoning behind it. That gap in understanding is not enough to establish that no rationale existed. The same warning applies to historical and contemporary decisions. Investigation can still conclude that the reasoning was absent or unsound; the point is to avoid assuming that conclusion at the start.