The Prisoner's Dilemma, from game theory, illustrates why two rational individuals may fail to cooperate even when it serves their best interests. In a classical example, two criminals are arrested for the same serious crime. Police, playing a good/bad cop routine, engineer betrayal to get to the truth. Both would benefit by cooperating and remaining silent. Yet each individual would think rationally in self-interest, which makes betrayal a dominant strategy, both speak against each other and get sentenced.

Conflicts involve at least two opponents. Their individual choices shape outcome; unless one has the competence to decisively achieve defined strategic objectives, muddled aims make the conflict a war of attrition trapped in micro-battles without winner or loser or end. What emerges is a rationality trap similar to Prisoner's quandary, where self-interest harms both sides, but cooperation would benefit both. The solution lies not on battlefield but in human nature.

To understand this dilemma, a distinction between rational and rationality must be made. A rational choice is rooted in reason not emotion, aligned with one's goals and coherent under given circumstances. Rationality, by contrast, is our faculty to process information and devise actions to achieve outcomes, for example, in an arms race where both sides incur escalating costs for armament regardless.

Human behaviour is complex and unpredictable. To me, rationality serves merely as a vassal for our deeper innate force of existence, which is our ability to make choices and create one's own unique life. Rumi (1273 CE) beautifully describes this: "You are what you seek" (Har chiz keh dar jostan-e ?ni, ?ni).........

© The Express Tribune