There are two kinds of decision-making.
Our minds can be great at analysing a whole range of factors and guiding our instincts to the correct answer, but this nonverbal analysis that happens in our brains can be difficult for us to put into words when our reasoning needs to be explained to other people.
A rational decision is one that can be justified logically in a few words. The justification makes logical sense but is often too simplistic for the real world--this kind of conscious verbal decision making has lower bandwidth than our more primitive hunches--since the logic only goes as far as one or two variables under discussion.
This often leads to rational decisions sounding like good ideas in a boardroom meeting, but ultimately producing bad outcomes.
Meanwhile intuitive decisions that sound silly when we try to explain them, can unexpectedly end up producing good outcomes that seem to 'defy logic'.
We are digital beings in an analog world
Our world/reality is naturally analog. Lots of variables balance each other out; trying to fix one variable always throws something else out of whack; life often produces the same frustrations as trying to fine-tune old analog machinery.
Meanwhile humans are digital thinkers. We want black|white, true|false, 1|0. People get unhappy and frustrated when the real world acts analog instead. You always hear people lamenting 'X was true so why didn't Y happen?' followed by 'sometimes life just doesn't make sense.' But that's because people foolishly impose digital thinking on a complicated analog system.
The more primitive (intuitive and animalistic) part of our brains isn't good for concious thinking or rational justification, but it is at least well-evolved to the kind of universe we live in.