.

The writer is a chemical engineer with interest in Society, Politics \& Economy. Contact him at: dsa.papers.2024@gmail.com

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). This life-force is what I call 'Tangible Rationality', the rationality in the eye of the beholder, to which a person remains hostage till death. This is distinct from bounded rationality, and is the full expression of who we are.

Tangible Rationality is multi-dimensional and dynamic in nature. Each dimension shapes choices in its own way, ultimately converging in a unique action that maximises situation-specific benefit, with these dimensional agents being:

'Anchored Agent': instinctively rooted in human nature and evolved through social, religious, moral, philosophical, legal, political frameworks and work-life obligations. In practice, neither its boundaries are absolute nor universally accepted; societal changes dilute past practices and shift rational compass: for instance, sati (when a wife was cremated with her deceased husband) was considered rational, later criminalised and abandoned; and societal shifts even override divine commandments (e.g., same-gender relations remain prohibited, but are now allowed in some countries, and their marriages are legally recognised).

'Mechanical Agent': an amoral calculator indifferent to human emotions and ethical implications, focusing on maximising benefits like machine logic. Imagine profit-seeking through malpractice, elite capture and resource exploitation in self-interest, or aggression in pursuit of domination.

'Pensive Agent': pivotal dimension where pertinent information and outputs of anchored and mechanical agents are integrated and evaluated. Options are scrutinised against trade-offs, personal preferences and cost-benefit analyses. The individual or group is aware of gravity of their decision and its impact on themselves and others.

Prisoner's Dilemma fails because criminals did not fully employ Tangible Rationality. Instead, they relied on Mechanical Agent for gain, chose self-interest and betrayed their partner. If Pensive Agent had been engaged, they would not have committed the crime in the first place.

The Prisoner's Dilemma is a microcosm of a far larger game we all play. Here, we consider a game between the prisoners: human beings and the prison: our needs and wants being survival, pleasure, power and at the top of this escalation ladder, Vanity.

Human existence necessitates survival through food, shelter and reproduction. There is no defection from these basic needs. Moving up the ladder is seeking pleasure by chasing wealth, status and indulgence, which begins defection through unfair means that harm others. Self-interest overcomes collective interest. Next stage is power, dominance, generational wealth and legacy. Once again, self-interest becomes a rational choice for the individual who defects via breaking rules, corruption, betrayals and exploiting others. Finally, Vanity: limitless need for superiority and admiration. The zenith of self-manifestation where shame becomes a rational choice, even callously destroying people's lives and institutions, and world order.

No example of human Vanity on grand scale illustrates this more starkly than the Iraq War of 2003. The US intelligence, later shown to be flawed, was backed by the UK, with no direct threat in sight, and no link to 9/11 event. Anchored Agent of international law and moral prohibition against unprovoked invasion was set aside. Mechanical Agent of strategic gains: oil, regional dominance, geopolitical leverage, became calculus. Pensive Agent trade-off of gains against chaos and destruction sealed the act of aggression. Decision where Tangible Rationality manifested in its most devastating form: hundreds of thousands of dead, region destabilised, ISIS emerged, and WMD were never found.

Fast forward today: Vanity resurfaced as US and Israel struck Iran in February 2026, justified by an alleged imminent threat from Iran (an assessment contradicted by an internal evaluation recently disclosed), with no direct danger to either nation. Yet war was launched and continued despite consequences spreading across the world. Once again, Anchored Agent was bypassed, Mechanical Agent of regional dominance drove calculus, and Pensive Agent sealed it. This was not a strategy, but a self-definition, and the choice was not about winning, but being the actor who wins, regardless of cost.

What fuels the move up the ladder was described by Hobbes (1651 CE) as "a perpetual and restless desire of power after power, that ceaseth only in death". Russell (1950 CE) characterised human fallibility in four infinite desires (greed, rivalry, vanity, and love of power) and said these "can never be fully gratified" and would "keep him restless even in Paradise". It is this restlessness and perpetual seeking that Rumi understood as the essence of human existence.

What we seek is what we are. And what the most powerful seek, in the end, is themselves - the world bears the cost of that seeking. How to avoid this? Strengthening national and international institutions, peer review of intelligence assessments, and diligent appraisal of consequences for a hyper-connected world, not just self-interest.