First-level thinking is simplistic and superficial, and just about everyone can do it (a bad sign for anything involving an attempt at superiority). All the first-level thinker needs is an opinion about the future, as in "The outlook for the company is favorable, meaning the stock will go up."

Second-level thinking is deep, complex, and convoluted. The second-level thinker takes a great many things into account:

What is the range of likely future outcomes?
What outcome do I think will occur?
What's the probability I'm right?
What does the consensus think?
How does my expectation differ from the consensus?
How does the current price for the asset compare with the consensus view of the future, and with mine?

Is the consensus psychology that's incorporated in the price too bullish or bearish?
What will happen to the asset price if the consensus turns out to be right, and what if I'm right?
The difference in workload between the first-level and second-level thinking is clearly massive, and the number of people capable of the latter is tiny compared to the number capable of the former.