Very interesting post. It would be nice to formalize a model with the existing ideas from behavioral game theory (Cognitive Hierarchy Model / level-k thinking / endogenous depth of reasoning), with the added cooperative dimension (caring to minimize the cognitive cost for the other). (As some suggest in the comments ask-culture may be an equilibrium?)

Some references:

Colin F. Camerer, Teck-Hua Ho, Juin-Kuan Chong, A Cognitive Hierarchy Model of Games, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Volume 119, Issue 3, August 2004, Pages 861–898, https://doi.org/10.1162/0033553041502225

Larbi Alaoui, Antonio Penta, Endogenous Depth of Reasoning, The Review of Economic Studies, Volume 83, Issue 4, October 2016, Pages 1297–1333, https://doi.org/10.1093/restud/rdv052

And of course this is all very related to theory of mind in psychology. On that note I once read in a lecture by Robin Dunbar (Mind the Gap; or Why Humans Are Not Just Great Apes) that for most people the highest level they can reach is 5. The relevant paragraph:

This being so, our main interest at this point is what the natural limits of intentional reasoning might be in humans. We have assayed normal adults in a number of separate studies, and it seems that the limits of function for adults are consistently fifth order (‘I believe that you suppose that I imagine that you want me to believe that ...’) (Kinderman et al. 1998; Stiller and Dunbar 2007). Around two-thirds of individuals have their limit at or below fifth-order intentionality, and three-quarters have their limit at or below sixth order. There is considerable individual variation around this (Stiller and Dunbar 2007), and we have shown that the higher levels are lost during the active phase of at least two well-known clinical conditions (bipolar disorder: Kerr et al. 2003; paranoid schizophrenia: Swarbrick 2000). These competences develop over a period of time between age 5 (when children first acquire theory of mind, or second-order intentionality) and the early teens (when they finally acquire fifth-order adult-level competences; Henzi et al. 2007).

How do you know someone really accepted Christ and isn’t just saying it? What if they do it wrong? Protestants don’t believe in salvation through works, so you can’t even use their behavior as a check.

Hi, Evangelical Christian from across the Atlantic here. Just wanted to point out that the traditional Protestant doctrine of "salvation through faith, not works" does not mean that you cannot use behavior as a check. Based on texts such as Matthew 7.15-23 ("So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit") or James 2.14-26 ("show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works"), many Protestants (and Evangelicals) consider that true faith will necessarily induce personal change leading to "good works". So someone who says they believe but does not exhibit behavioral improvements would not "really know Jesus / have made the handshake". 

In the words of John Calvin (who was pretty stuck on salvation by faith alone):

"It is therefore faith alone which justifies, and yet the faith which justifies is not alone: just as it is the heat alone of the sun which warms the earth, and yet in the sun it is not alone, because it is constantly conjoined with light." (forum where I found the reference, along with several other helpful quotes from Luther and historic Lutheran confessions)

From my understanding, this is the majority view among Protestant theologians in history (and probably today as well). However, the very peculiar Evangelical culture in the US, especially in corners that devalue theological study (as described in the article; often non-denominational), and the simplifications that come with it, have given some prevalence to views such as the one you describe. 

Otherwise, I had lots of fun reading this, thank you for making that bridge! I have heard many Christians criticize the start-up mentality of church planting, but its nice getting this from an outside view.