The Fundamental Attribution Error

I think the drive to understand things like Scientology is often driven by the exact same thing that makes fooling people with Scientology possible.

We have biases, use fallacies and make errors in reasoning.

If we look at a lot of these then the belief that an individual can have that they cannot be duped so the others who are just be especially stupid, gullible, crazy, etc is used to reconcile contradictory impulses or beliefs.

A few things add up to this.

The fundamental attribution error is part this.

Here are a few excerpts from Psych Wiki:

In attribution theory, the fundamental attribution error (sometimes referred to as the actor-observer bias, correspondence bias or overattribution effect) is the tendency for people to over-emphasize dispositional, or personality-based, explanations for behaviors observed in others while under-emphasizing the role and power of situational influences on the same behavior. In other words, people tend to have a default assumption that what a person does is based more on what "kind" of person he is, rather than the social and environmental forces at work on that person. This default assumption leads to people sometimes making erroneous explanations for behavior. This general bias to over-emphasizing dispositional explanations for behavior at the expense of situational explanations is much less likely to occur when people evaluate their own behavior.

in:
Attribution, Cognitive biases
Fundamental attribution error

In attribution theory, the fundamental attribution error (sometimes referred to as the actor-observer bias, correspondence bias or overattribution effect) is the tendency for people to over-emphasize dispositional, or personality-based, explanations for behaviors observed in others while under-emphasizing the role and power of situational influences on the same behavior. In other words, people tend to have a default assumption that what a person does is based more on what "kind" of person he is, rather than the social and environmental forces at work on that person. This default assumption leads to people sometimes making erroneous explanations for behavior. This general bias to over-emphasizing dispositional explanations for behavior at the expense of situational explanations is much less likely to occur when people evaluate their own behavior.

The term was coined by Lee Ross some years after the now-classic experiment by Edward E. Jones and Victor Harris. Ross argued in a popular paper that the fundamental attribution error forms the conceptual bedrock for the field of social psychology.

More recently some psychologists including Daniel Gilbert have begun using the term "correspondence bias" for the fundamental attribution error and the two terms are often used synonymously. Jones wrote that he found Ross' term "overly provocative and somewhat misleading" (and also joked "Furthermore, I'm angry that I didn't think of it first").

Classic demonstration study: Jones and Harris (1967)Edit
Based on an earlier theory developed by Edward E. Jones and Keith Davis, Jones and Victor Harris hypothesized that when people saw others behave according to free will, they would attribute the behavior to disposition. When they could tell that others behaved according to the circumstances of chance, however, observers would attribute the behavior to the situation.

Subjects listened to pro- and anti-Fidel Castro speeches. Subjects were asked to rate the pro-Castro attitudes of both. When the subjects believed that the speech makers freely chose which position to take (for or against Castro), they naturally rated the people who gave the pro-Castro speeches as having a more positive attitude toward Castro. However, contradicting Jones and Harris' hypothesis, when the subjects were specifically told that the speech makers gave either a pro- or an anti-Castro speech solely as the result of a coin flip (random), the subjects still rated the people who gave the pro-Castro speeches as having, on average, a more positive attitude towards Castro than those giving anti-Castro speeches. Thus, even when subjects were aware that the speeches made were solely because of the flip of a coin, they committed the fundamental attribution error when it came to judging the motivation behind pro or anti-Castro attitudes of the speech makers.

Everyday example
You are walking up to a cashier at the grocery store to check out when a man with two children cuts directly in front of you, arriving to pay the cashier before you. You are likely to grumble and think "What an incredible jerk!" Your default assumption is that the person is ill-mannered. You do not realize that the man did not even see you as his attention was largely focused on keeping his two children with him and moving to the cashier. Thus, your dispositional attribution for his behavior was, in this instance, incorrect. The man simply did not see you as his attention was focused on his children.

Layman's Terms
When something bad happens to me I attribute it to external causes. When something good happens to me, I attribute it to internal causes. The reverse is also true. When something bad happens to somebody else, it is because of internal causes. If something good happens to another person, it is attributed to external causes.

How to reduce the error's effects
A number of "debiasing" techniques have been found effective in reducing the effect of the fundamental attribution error:

Take heed to "consensus" information. If most people behave the same way when put in the same situation, then the situation is more likely to be the cause of the behavior.
Ask yourself how you would behave in the same situation.
Look for unseen causes. Since "salient" factors are usually overattributed, look for factors you would not normally take notice of.end quote

A lot of research has been done to support this idea.

It is convenient to think of my bad behavior and errors as being caused by the situations I am in, to think of my good behavior and praiseworthy accomplishments as due to my inherent character and choices and to think of other people in different ways. In particular, people who I think of as different from me or in competition with me in some way as being the source of anything undesirable or negative they do and for circumstances to be the source of anything good or positive they do.

A simple example is income. Using the fundamental attribution error I can think that I earned the money I make and am superior to everyone who I make more money than. Then I can pivot to think that the people who make more money than I do are the beneficiaries of fortunate circumstances, maybe they had rich parents, better opportunities at education, caught lucky breaks or have connections that were essential to their success.

We can apply this to anything. I know a few of the angry middle aged white men. They get jobs making around for example fifty thousand dollars a year. They have had plenty of opportunities as straight white men in America. They see the success they achieved as the result of ability and hard work but see an imaginary better life they never achieved as being held by minorities who got all the good jobs through affirmative action. The fact that the jobs they are talking about all are held vastly disproportionately by white men is irrelevant to this fantasy.

If you look at job after job and the executive strata of corporations and the offices of political power it is apparent that white men are the first and second in line for thousands and thousands of opportunities. White men usually hold these positions and hire other white men in perpetuity.

The reality of the situation and the fact that affirmative action has barely given a tiny sliver of opportunities to very few people is absolutely lost on these guys.

So, when people look at cult members it is also a tendency for some to understand difficulties and obstacles affecting their own lives but to see cult members as fully responsible for their circumstances, despite being, well hypocritical in having one view of themselves and another of others.

One of the easiest ways to explain the fundamental attribution error is to say when I am late for work I understand I had a flat tire or a rough day at home and to excuse it while deciding that when a coworker I don't like is late it is because he is lazy or a bad person. And that I earned all my money but people who I don't like didn't earn their money, they are lucky.