(Author's note/content warning: this post contains politically controversial examples, which are unfortunately perhaps necessary given the subject. I have tried to be relatively even-handed in this matter, my apologies if I erred in doing so.)
Occasionally, one reads a purported "takedown" of an opposing group that perhaps deals more with the writer's own models than those of the group he intends to refute.
For example, I recently read a widely-shared Quora post that claimed that religious proselytization was part of an elaborate brainwashing scheme to make the proselytizers themselves feel more connected to their own religion, and that the goal was not at all to make converts. The post might have been a good piece of rhetoric, but as something that aimed to actually understand the outgroup I think it was silly and obviously wrong.
Another example might be the claim that abortion supporters literally worship Moloch and want to kill babies as sacrifices, or for that matter the claim that abortion opponents only hold their views because they hate women and oppose abortion as part of a conspiracy to curtail women's rights.
What do these sorts of claims all have in common? They don't take the outgroup seriously. Sure, there might well be some fringe radicals who actually worship Moloch and want to kill babies or who oppose abortion because doing so furthers their conspiracy to suppress women, but such views likely constitute an extreme minority opinion. In point of fact, the person who says "I support abortion because I support women's rights." probably in fact actually believes that; the person who says "I support abortion because I believe killing a fetus is murder." probably in fact actually believes that too! There is no need to posit that these people are secret Moloch cultists or members of a grand conspiracy to suppress women -- they have already told you their reasons for their belief, and you weren't listening!
You can in fact often gain remarkable insight into the belief structures of most anyone -- even opponents -- by actually listening to and reading what they have to say. In most cases, people do not come up with elaborate secret reasoning for their opinions and then withhold it in favor of other arguments -- instead, they tend to explain their actual reasoning, which you can listen to to better understand their perspective.  However, it is very easy to skip over the reasoning that the person you're interacting with actually presents and instead engage only with very extreme arguments, even if they represent only a tiny fraction of what people holding these views actually believe. In fact, such styles of argument seem very common. 
I claim that thinking in this way is really doing a disservice not only to the outgroup but also to yourself. If you think of your opponents only as extreme caricatures, you are likely to miss their actual concerns, and you are less likely to be able to accurately model their viewpoints and perhaps come to a mutual understanding in the future. Instead, you may have frustrating and divisive conversations where it seems that both of you are operating based on caricatures of the others' opinion.
A large number of problems and misunderstandings, both politically and interpersonally, seem to me to be related to this sort of reasoning, and avoiding it seems often key to solving major problems in one's life. If you go around thinking that those who oppose you are all idiots, or crazy people, or innately evil, or just haven't thought about the situation (unlike you, of course!)... well, I won't say that you'll always be wrong, but that sure doesn't seem like the best way to go about trying to form an accurate model of the world! Instead, try looking at what they actually have to say and really actually trying to understand their arguments and what those arguments imply. You might be surprised at what you find!
 There are some domains where this may not apply, especially certain interpersonal ones (indeed, it would normally be considered outrageously impolite to explain your reasoning in some such matters), but the point stands in general.
 Scott Aikin and Robert Talisse refer to this as the weak man fallacy.