Introduction

This post will hopefully serve to illustrate a common pattern I see, one of those things that you see everywhere once you figure it out. I would be surprised if most people who read this haven't had the same thoughts as me, but maybe the direction I take the concepts will be different than those people. Of course, those people will have directions of their own. If that's you, feel free to put your insight in the comments.

So, what are the concepts I'm introducing? 
The first is Levels of Thought. HPMOR readers will recognize this from Eliezer Yudkowsky's excellent description of the concept:

(Professor Quirrell had remarked over their lunch that Harry really needed to conceal his state of mind better than putting on a blank face when someone discussed a dangerous topic, and had explained about one-level deceptions, two-level deceptions, and so on. So either Severus was in fact modeling Harry as a one-level player, which made Severus himself two-level, and Harry's three-level move had been successful; or Severus was a four-level player and wanted Harry to think the deception had been successful. Harry, smiling, had asked Professor Quirrell what level he played at, and Professor Quirrell, also smiling, had responded, One level higher than you.)

Honestly, this might be all you need to understand the concept, but my explanation might make the concept more accessible to real-world discussions, especially "Levels of Thought In Real Life".

The other concept is being blindsided. I explain what this is, how it ties into the Dunning-Kruger effect, and why it might not be such a bad thing in "Being Blindsided By Higher Level Thinkers (Falling Off Mount Stupid)"

This is in fact my first post. Thank you for reading it!

What Is A Level Of Thought?

The Situation

Imagine that you are sitting in the back room of a shady bar, watching a game of Texas Hold'em play out between four players: A, B, C and D. 
The hole cards are dealt, and A immediately bets 3 times the standard base amount. 
The remaining players are faced with an immediate question: how good is A's hand?

B, a rather simple man, thinks that A must have a good hand: Why else would he stake such a large amount on the first turn? 

C, a slightly shrewder fellow, suspects deception. "Aha!" he thinks, "He's trying to trick me into thinking he has a good hand to make me fold, so he can take the blinds virtually for free! I won't fall prey to such a deception!" So he calls the bluff, betting the same exorbitant amount on the first round.

D, more intelligent still, sees the actions of B and C, and ruminates:
"Hmm. B thinks that A has a good hand, that's why he folded. C thinks that A is bluffing, so he's calling said bluff. But what if A saw all that coming, and is actually double bluffing? Yes, it must be that way. I should fold."

What It Is To Be A Higher Level Thinker

You, from your vantage point, ponder on this for a minute. You think about it for a second assuming vastly oversimplified rules of poker, and assuming A is perfectly rational (Not ideal, but it will do for now).

From past games, A knows that B, C and D can all either fold or call the bluff. Whatever B does, C will do the opposite, and whatever C does, D will do the opposite (So that B and D's actions are identical, and if there was an E he would act in the same way as C)

If A has a strong hand, he has incentive to make sure as many people bet as possible, so he can take their money. Given that there are three other players who think at level 1, 2 and 3 (B, C and D), A would want B and D to end up thinking he has a weak hand, so they bet and he can take their money. B's thought process is entirely straightforward: If A bets high, he must have a strong hand, and if he bets the standard amount he must have a weak hand. So if A has a strong hand, he would bet the standard amount.

Conversely, if A has a weak hand, he wants to minimize the amount of people calling his bluff. A would want B to think that he has a strong hand, and looking at B's thought process betting high is the best way to do that.

Thus you deduce that A has a weak hand. You look over, and the round is over: Either C or A is raking in the chips, depending on who had the stronger hand by luck of the draw. Now, if I was A, I would partner up with C and split the winnings afterward. Maybe that con is going on: you don't know.

Levels Of Thought In Real Life

The Question

The last section presented a thought experiment which had only two actions possible to take: calling the bluff, or folding. This section hopes to provide thoughts on a more real-world situation: namely a conversation. To keep from getting too philosophical and abstracting my point, I'm using a simple question, the likes of which occasionally makes the rounds on the internet. 

The question is: Is a Hot Pocket a Wellington? (Directly analogous to A)
 

A Lv.1 Thinker (B) might say:

No, of course not. A Hot Pocket is a Hot Pocket, and a Wellington is a Wellington.

A Lv.2 Thinker (C) might say:

Well, it depends what your definition of "Wellington" is. If a Wellington is simply meat surrounded by pastry, then yes, of course.
However, Wikipedia defines a Wellington as:

Beef Wellington is a steak dish of English origin, made out of fillet steak coated with pâté (often pâté de foie gras) and duxelles, wrapped in puff pastry, then baked.

Obviously, a Hot Pocket isn't a steak dish of English origin made of fillet steak coated with pâté and duxelles, wrapped in pastry, then baked, so according to that definition, no, a Hot Pocket isn't a Wellington.
But we have no reason to accept Wikipedia's definition, or anyone else's for that matter, other than arguments from authority. So why not? A Hot Pocket is a Wellington.

A Lv.3 Thinker (D) might say:

Well, let's just say that I accept that a Hot Pocket is a Wellington. If a Hot Pocket can be a Wellington, shouldn't Pigs in Blankets also be small Wellingtons? And come to think of it, isn't a corn dog also just a long Wellington? And a Pop Tart is just a sweet Wellington, too. 
But if a Pop Tart can be a Wellington, can't an apple pie also be a Wellington? What about just a regular sandwich? Are plant cells just Cytoplasm, Organelle and Cellulose Wellingtons? 
If you think about it, humans are just Skin Wellingtons. And Earth is just a Crust and Magma Wellington.

(This is, of course, a reductio ad absurdum, taking the conclusion of an argument and running with it to show the consequences.)

Being Blindsided By Higher Level Thinkers (Falling off Mount Stupid)

Unequal matchups

If someone is one level of thought or skill above you, their arguments, or actions, or whatever you're measuring, will probably be better and stronger. This happens all the time: someone is just better, or smarter in most matchups, whether it be debate, competitive sport, or chess. This tends to end rather swiftly, and frankly uninterestingly. You've probably had this experience playing sport or co-operative video games: just being decisively better, or worse, than someone you're playing with. These are not particularly interesting.

Equal matchups

This is where things tend to get interesting. If two people are evenly matched, no matter their actual skill level, it's almost always interesting, whether it's Batman vs Superman, or a chess match between two 900 rated players. This is because, as they're evenly matched, to win one side must show uncharacteristic skill or thought, having a whole character arc in the middle of a battle, effectively "Leveling Up".

Falling off Mt. Stupid

This is the only really interesting outcome that can come from an uneven matchup with no constraints on the stronger person, as far as I can see: You can cause someone to fall off Mount Stupid.
Mount Stupid refers to the peak at the beginning of the Dunning-Kruger graph. It represents where someone has very little knowledge about an area, but thinks that they are advanced. I think the reason that this happens is unknown unknowns. Let's take origami as an example.

Someone on Mount Stupid would know how to fold a paper crane, a box, maybe a simple animal or two, and because they don't know enough about origami, they would think that they had reached the end of the journey, because all of the beautiful origami insects, structures, geometric formations etc. would be unknown unknowns to them. They not only wouldn't know that they aren't skilled enough to fold those things yet, they wouldn't even know that such things existed. 
When they eventually watch a YouTube video from a master folder, they will fall off Mt. Stupid, the unknown unknowns abruptly becoming known unknows, pushing them off Mt. Stupid into the Valley of Despair.
In the context of matchups, the person would be matching their knowledge against the master, and getting thoroughly outmatched by things they didn't even know existed.

You Can Get Blindsided From Anywhere

I personally got blindsided recently. I was watching a speech by Alex O'Connor at the ACSJ on the Kalam Cosmological argument. I'm sure you all know it, but just in case, the Kalam goes like this:

P1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
P2: The Universe began to exist.
C: The Universe has a cause.

Generally, when attacking this argument, I've cast doubt on the Universe beginning to exist, or the link between the conclusion and God. I was just taking P1 as granted. But as O'Connor says in the speech, when have we actually seen anything begin to exist? Here, let's make a list:
1: The Universe
2:
That's the list! Every other thing that most people might say began to exist seems just like a rearrangement of pre-existing things (There's probably some quantum physics that disproves me here, but it doesn't really matter for this argument).
So given that the Universe is the only thing that began to exist, the Kalam begins to look rather silly:

P1: The Universe has a cause
P2: The Universe began to exist
C: The Universe has a cause

This completely blindsided me: I had always just granted the first premise before. The lesson here is: You can be blindsided from anywhere. People that agree with you can blindside you just as well as people that disagree with you. But either way, getting blindsided is better than staying on Mt. Stupid.

Level Specialization (There Is No General Level)

If Albert Einstein came up to me, and said "We should increase regulation on coconut oil imports," I would probably be quite surprised. But after I got over my surprise at a dead man talking to me, I would ask "Why do you think that?"
Now, imagine he says "Well, it's just self-evident! Look at the trees!"
Of course, this would never happen. But something that could is Newton coming up to you and saying "Ingesting mercury is perfectly safe."
This is what happens when someone who is high level in one area is still on Mt. Stupid in another. 
Skill in one area can sometimes translate to skill in another sometimes. For example, if you can play piano, you will have an easier time learning other instruments, because you already know how to read music. These perks (Reading Music) can be instrumental. But don't count on it. 
You can put experience points into Biology or Archaeology like you would put points into STR or DEX, and level up in those fields. But there is no general level. Albert Einstein wasn't Lv.80, he was Lv.100 in Physics and Lv.80 in Maths.

Conclusion

Here's the bullet point conclusion.

-Strive to increase your Lv. in important fields.
-If you get blindsided, realize that you were on Mt. Stupid.
-Don't think your high level in one area will translate to others.

Thanks for reading!