This article got me thinking about game theory a bit. In particular, when the author writes, "Game theory predicts that the Nash equilibrium will occur when the Traveler's Dilemma is played rationally," he is guilty of a common mistake.
I know many game theorists think game theory should model human behaviour, but they are mistaken. Game theory is a formal system, an abstraction from real decisions in which many factors other than those specified in the game come into play. It is interesting, and can offer some insight into real decisions, but to take it to predict anything about them, or, even worse, that it can stand as a normative judge of a decision's "rationality" or "irrationality, are severe mistakes. Saying "a Nash equilibrium is the rational result in game X" says no more than "If you play this game according to the rules I stipulate, then you will play it according to those rules." There is no reason whatsoever that it is "irrational" for someone facing a real situation like the one described in the article to take into account factors not specified in the abstract definition of the game.