Psychological Egoism is correct

In this round, I will remake my case more thoroughly, and then address my opponents arguments.After reading the Stanford entry, I discovered that has confusing explanations so I would like to refer the reader to use http://en.wikipedia.org... as the reference that defines my position.The Stanford encylopedia states that "Psychological egoism claims that each person has but one ultimate aim: her own welfare. This allows for action that fails to maximize perceived self-interest, but rules out the sort of behavior psychological egoists like to target — such as altruistic behavior or motivation by thoughts of duty alone. It allows for weakness of will, since in weakness of will cases I am still aiming at my own welfare; I am weak in that I do not act as I aim. And it allows for aiming at things other than one's welfare, such as helping others, where these things are a means to one's welfare." This explanation is confusing because the proper definitions of "altruistic behavior" and even "motivation by thoughts of duty alone" are dependent on the veracity of psychological egoism. The key aspect to remember is that motivation includes conscious AND subconscious desires. In other words, the decisions, or output, of a human brain is entirely dependant upon how it processes it's inputs. From the perspective of psychological egoism, those two phrases are defined more strictly than the commonly accepted definitions "altruistic behavior" seem to ignore the propensity of the brain to make decisions subconsciously. The definition is that behavior is altruistic merely if the motivations that the decider is consciously aware of are purely concerned with the well-being of others. My contention is that even if the conscious part of the brain is entirely unaware of it's subconscious motivations( which must follow some system of rules for formulation), the goal of the subconscious brain, and therefore the brain as whole, is always to maximize expected welfare.CON wrote "While the psychological egoist can point out self-interested benefits of otherwise altruistic actions, they cannot actually show that the benefit was what motivated the action to begin with. That's just something they assume." This is clearly an impossible thing to prove in a scientific manner, given the current state of technology and is therefore a weak criticism of psychological egoism. To do so we would need an understanding of the workings of the human brain exponentially more accurate than we have today.CON wrote "Consider this scenario. A man buys a life insurance policy that costs him $20/month for the rest of his life. When he dies, it pays his family $200,000. So he doesn't get anything from the life insurance policy. Rather, it costs him. The reason he gets it is so his family will be taken care of." It is certainly plausible that he expects to gain pleasure and/or avoid pain as a result of taking this action. By purchasing this insurance he will prevent the psychological discomfort that comes from considering his family's fate after his demise. Moreover it is plausible that he has concluded consciously or subconsciously that avoiding that discomfort will aid him in achieving other goals. CON then states "So, let's suppose that there's a pill the man could take that would give him those exact same feelings except that the pill is free. So the man has a choice:A. Pay $20/month and get a psychological pay-off.B. Save $20/month and get the exact same psychological pay-off."This is a not and never could be a real scenario because there will never be a pill that can guarantee to perfectly replicate the exact same psychological effects. Also if there was somehow such a pill, why would it be free?CON wrote "Concerning that first contention, unless we could look at every choice that every person has ever made, we're not in a position to say that the motivation behind each of those choices was self-interested." because "Psychological egoism claims that all of our actions are motivated by self-interest." This is what psychological egoism claims is true. I think that it is true and that the case for its veracity has been well made, but, my intended contention, I recognize that I failed to make this clear, is merely that, by its nature every choice made by a human is motivated by self-interest. Perhaps on rare occasion a human is able to overcome its nature and rewire itself into operating in a fundamentally selfless way. I don't think that is the case but even if it is, psychological egoism is the default nature of a human being. Moreover the tendency of a human to obey the rules of psychological egoism, consciously or subconsciously, is so strong that it is impossible for a majority of humans to ever overcome it. This is impossible, in part, because those that do overcome it will tend to reproduce less. I invite all readers to challenge me to a debate on this or any other serious topic.