The study gets much more complex after you past the basics

  > People are irrational actors

I think you misunderstand, but I don't blame you. "Rational actor" would mean something else in normal language. In game theory it does not mean that they are smart or even reasonable. It means they have some logic which can be tracked or quantified.

An irrational actor is one who is logically incoherent. I don't mean illogical, I mean something closer to incomprehensible.

Maybe an example helps. Let's say our actor expresses that they want to live and is trying to get to work. An irrational action would be for them to pick up a gun, point it at their head, and fire under the condition that they are fully aware that this will kill them. But instead, if the actor believes shooting themself will teleport themselves to work, then it is a rational decision.

Or another example, an actor trying to win a game of chess knowingly marches their king into a capture position. But instead if they were unaware that such a move leads to a checkmate, then they're still rational.

An irrational actor has a logic that cannot be understood. It's not about the quality of their logic, it's about the existence. Even an actor acting probabilistically has some logic, as we can quantify it (using a density function).

Basically an irrational actor is one who knowingly undermines their own goals. It's a very narrow definition. Irrational actors are logically incoherent. So