It reminded me of this article:

When a single experiment seems to show that subjects are guilty of some horrifying sinful bias (...) people may try to dismiss (not defy) the experimental data. Most commonly, by questioning whether the subjects interpreted the experimental instructions in some unexpected fashion (...) Experiments are not beyond questioning; on the other hand, there should always exist some mountain of evidence which suffices to convince you. It's not impossible for researchers to make mistakes. It's also not impossible for experimental subjects to be really genuinely and truly biased. It happens. On both sides, it happens. We're all only human here. If you think to extend a hand of charity toward experimental subjects, casting them in a better light, you should also consider thinking charitably of scientists. They're not stupid, you know. If you can see an alternative interpretation, they can see it too. This is especially important to keep in mind when you read about a bias and one or two illustrative experiments in a blog post. Yes, if the few experiments you saw were all the evidence, then indeed you might wonder. But you might also wonder if you're seeing all the evidence that supports the standard interpretation. Especially if the experiments have dates on them like "1982" and are prefaced with adjectives like "famous" or "classic".

The belief in correctness of status quo is very strong. Even if people don't literally believe in "just world", they still want to believe that at least some parts of the world are the way thay are for a reason. Maybe there is no god creating the balance, but couldn't evolution or economy have the same outcome?

There is also the "Chesterton's fence" concept, that if you don't understand how X makes sense, that may be a fact about you, not a fact about X.

Perhaps it would be better to solve each case separately. What is the evidence for rationality of the given behavior? What is the evidence for its irrationality?