Here's an example problem, which I'm going to solve in a suboptimal way.
Show that there is an $n$ large enough that in any coloring of an $n \times n$ grid by $r$ colors, there is a rectangle whose corners are monochromatic. (That is, we can choose $1 \le x_1 < x_2 \le n$ and $1 \le y_1 < y_2 \le n$ such that $(x_1,y_1), (x_1,y_2), (x_2, y_1), (x_2, y_2)$ are all the same color.)
Let $n = r^{r+1}+1$, and take an $r+1$ by $r^{r+1}+1$ subgrid of the $n \times n$ grid which is colored by $r$ colors.
First, in every column (which has height $r+1$), there are two identically colored cells.
Second, there are $r^{r+1}$ ways to color a column. With $r^{r+1}+1$ columns, we know that two columns will be identically colored.
So pick the rectangle whose corners are the two identically colored cells in those two identically colored columns.
(This proof can be made more efficient and it doesn't actually need $n$ as big as $r^{r+1}+1$, but I can give you similar problems in which this is the best thing we know how to do.)
We could take this proof up to $3$ dimensions (and find a "cuboid" whose corners are identically colored). To do that, take an $r+1$ by $r^{r+1}+1$ by $r^{(r+1)(r^{r+1}+1)}+1$ grid. In each of its $r+1$ by $r^{r+1}+1$ layers, we can find a rectangle whose corners are monochromatic. To go from that to a cuboid, we find two identically colored layers. There are $(r+1)(r^{r+1}+1)$ total cells in a layer, so there are $r^{(r+1)(r^{r+1}+1)}$ ways to color a layer. We have more layers than that, so two layers have an identical coloring.
The 2D result gave us about $r^r$ as a bound, and the 3D result gave us about $r^{r^r}$ as a bound. If we go up to $k$ dimensions, the bound we get is going to be approximately $r\uparrow\uparrow k$.
In this particular example, the only thing that we're applying at every step is the pigeonhole principle. If there are more cells in a column, or columns in a 2D grid, or layers in a 3D grid, than there are ways to color each cell/column/layer, then we win.
In a more complicated problem, instead of the pigeonhole principle, we might be applying another Ramsey-type theorem. In that case, in addition to iterated powers, we're going to be iterating some other function.
If that Ramsey-type theorem itself involved some kind of argument like this one, then it could have a hyperoperation for its upper bound. In that case, by applying that theorem over and over, we will get a higher-order hyperoperation for our final bound.