I find that most of his first examples are just stating situations in which we may rationally decide to withhold information from ourselves or others in order to procure a better outcome in the particular situation. Not necessarily choosing a sort of irrational school of thought over a rational one. Similar to the whole difference of semantics between wisdom and intelligence. Wisely choosing to have less intelligence on a certain subject.

After that he gives examples of different real world examples of the chicken game, in which the person who irrationally gives up control is the winner. But every example he gives of this is slightly different in some aspect and would almost all benefit from rational decision making. The Chicken game, sure you'll win the game by putting a brick on the gas pedal, but you're likely to also loose your life, it's rational to keep control in order to minimize your chance of dying.

In the case of threats and bluffs, it's never a case of "be irrational and people will know you mean business", it's always a rational consideration between how advantageous you are, how advantageous the opposition is, and how likely it is they will call your bluff. It's better to threaten a much smaller person than it is to threaten a much bigger one, because it's more likely you will win the confrontation, if that confrontation makes sense to participate in at any rate.