This article considers a set of well-researched default assumptions that people make in reasoning about complex causality and argues that, in part, they result from the forms of causal induction that we engage in and the type of information available in complex environments. It considers how information often falls outside our attentional frame such that covariation falls short, mechanisms can be nonobvious, and the testimony that others offer is typically subject to the same constraints as our own perceptions. It underscores the importance of multiple modes of causal induction used in support of one another when discerning and teaching about causal complexity. It considers the importance of higher order reflection on the nature of causality that recognizes the challenging features of complex causality and how it interacts with human causal cognition.