Jumping to Conclusions: Blaming Others, Exonerating Ourselves

Something goes wrong in our personal lives, communities, or politics, we look for someone to blame.

A trio of habits — jumping to conclusions, blaming others, and excusing ourselves — can feed division, and make truth harder to see. The aftermath of the Charlie Kirk shooting offers a vivid case study of how these tendencies play out in real time.

The Lure of Conclusions

The first part of this pattern is the rush to judgment. When the news of the Charlie Kirk shooting broke, facts were scarce. Who did it? Why? What were the motives? In that vacuum, speculation rushed in. Within hours, narratives hardened. For some, the attack confirmed the dangers of right-wing rhetoric; for others, it revealed the violence of left-wing extremism. Political point scoring dominated online posts.

Few people paused to say: “We don’t yet know.”

Waiting for evidence is slow, and slowness does not suit the media ecosystem in which we live.

Social media thrives on immediacy. Hot takes spread faster than humility. Speculation is packaged as insight, and once widely circulated, it becomes difficult to retract. By the time investigators clarify the facts, the public imagination has already been captured by premature conclusions.

The Comfort of Blame

Blame is the story we reach for to impose order on chaos. Putting weight on others brings emotional relief. Hatred of others’ views enables us to confirm our own.

If the person responsible belongs to the group we already distrust, blame comes easily: “Of course, this is what they do.” Blame gets internalized as the truth.

Psychologists call this the fundamental attribution error, a tendency to explain others’ behavior as the product of bad character rather than circumstance. A man cuts us off in traffic? He’s a reckless jerk. We cut someone off? We were late, distracted, having a tough day.

The same asymmetry operates at the societal level. Tragedies committed by “them” confirm their moral bankruptcy. Tragedies connected to “us” are brushed off as honest mistakes.

The Shield of Exoneration

We are quick to exonerate ourselves. In times of crisis, whole groups insist: this has nothing to do with us, our words, our choices, our unfounded beliefs.

How convenient.

The reality is that none of us lives in isolation. The words we use, the anger we stir up, the contempt we tolerate, all of these contribute to shaping the moral climate in which events occur.

Our pretense of innocence flies in the face of integrity. Integrity means being willing to ask uncomfortable questions about our role in the environment that produces destructive acts.

The Historical Pattern

This cycle is not new. Within hours of the assassination of John F. Kennedy, rumors spread that the killer, Lee Harvey Oswald, acted as part of a larger Communist, Cuban, Soviet, or even domestic conspiracy. The lack of clarity created a vacuum filled with premature theories.

Because Oswald had connections to Marxist groups and pro-Castro activism, the public rushed to assume he was part of an international plot, even before any investigation was complete.

The Warren Commission later concluded Oswald acted alone, but the early climate of suspicion created a lasting culture of conspiracy theories. When I visited the site of that assassination a few years ago, a man on the street handed me a pamphlet with a bold headline: “Lee Harvey Oswald did not act alone!”

With enough repetition, lies become truths.

And what’s different now is speed. What once unfolded over weeks in newspapers now unfolds in minutes online. The cycle of blame and judgment is faster, harsher, and harder to undo.

Practicing Slower Thinking

Breaking this cycle requires slowing down. That means resisting the impulse to point fingers, pausing before excusing ourselves, and refusing to draw conclusions until evidence emerges.

Slower thinking takes humility. It means admitting what we don’t know, and acknowledging that our side (if we have one) may not be blameless. This is not passivity. True accountability emerges from facts, not reflexes.

Practical Steps for Everyday Life

Here are some steps we can take to respond with greater restraint and maturity to whatever crisis ignites around us:

1. Pause Before Posting

If possible, wait before sharing or commenting on breaking news. Give facts time to catch up with speculation. If you do decide you need to take an immediate stand, take it provisionally: “This is my immediate thought, but I am open to seeing it differently as the facts emerge.”

2. Ask Hard Questions

Instead of instantly distancing yourself, ask, “Could my words, my community, or my assumptions play even a small role in the climate that led to this crisis?”

3. Seek Multiple Sources

Read across perspectives to resist easy narratives.

4. Name Your Uncertainty

Saying “we don’t yet know” signals honesty and patience.

5. Scrutinize Bias

Imagine how you’d respond if the event implicated “your side.” This might reveal double standards.

6. Choose Integrity Over Innocence

Innocence avoids blame; integrity accepts responsibility.

A Word for Leaders

For leaders in organizations, families, and communities, the stakes are high. People take their cues from you. If you rush to blame, others follow. If you excuse yourself too quickly, they learn to do the same.

If you model patience, humility, and the courage to admit uncertainty, you create space for wiser reflection.

Leadership in moments of crisis isn’t about having instant answers. It’s about embodying restraint, integrity, and the discipline to overrule our reflexes.

When each side owns their own part, and resists premature conclusions, wise leadership is at work, and civic virtue grows.