It is true that so long as the definition of altruism is malleable we will all be frustrated by discussion.

I am curious though, Brett - how did your 100% use of the female pronoun (her/she) benefit you more than it cost you? As a male, I am personally offended. Just kidding - don't be offended by the question.

I wager that your lop-sided use of the female pronoun was a semi-conscious reaction to the intensely aggressive (some might say "masculine") nature of the ongoing debate. Was this an attempt to diffuse or balance the emotions underlying the discussion by planting sensibility sirens? If so, you might be on to something -- something deeper than the anti-emotional nature of your altruism calculus. Certainly, my attempts at humor have intended to serve a similar diffusive function but in a much different manner.

Ultimately, the floating variable here seems to be the caprice of human emotion. If one's theoretical model of human behavior insists on reducing every instance of emotional ambivalence to some quantifiable decision-tree, then we are all happily predictable automatons. If, however, emotions can lead to inexplicable mental absences from all cost-benefit calculations, then macro-economists are in the unfortunate position of not being god.

[It's getting a bit too abstract here, so for my own personal record I am making a mental note to be more concrete in synthesizing the following weeks' readings.]

-- JonathanBoyer - 29 Sep 2009