begbert2–At this point, we may be arguing over semantics. Suppose I concede your point–we always try to generate outcomes that we like. I am of the opinion that this thesis, if true, is neutral between egoism and non-egoism. What determines whether you are egoistic is the *nature *of the outcomes that you like. If you only like outcomes that benefit you (often at a cost to others), then you are an egoist. If you sometimes also like outcomes that benefit others (even sometimes at a cost to yourself), then you are not an egoist. IMO that’s a more plausible definition of egoism than yours. But again, at this point we may just be arguing over a definition rather than over any substantive psychological point.
Given that I’ve never used the word “egoist”, I doubt that I’m disagreeing with you over the semantics of it. 
I have used the term “jerk”, but I also said “If you do actions that help others at your own expense, then you’re not a jerk” - so in that regard it looks like we’re using the same definition, or close enough.
As I said, there is no value judgement being made in stating that all actions are, at their core, driven by personal interests and preferences. I mean, how could there be? Since all actions are all driven completely by their standing in the personal cost/benefit assessments, how could you rank them in any way by this? It’s the same all around, so there would be no criteria for judgement. You can of course assess actions by how much they benefit or hurt onesself and others, but that’s a completely different criteria, with not much relvence to the question of the mechanical process of cognition and from which perspective it originates.
If a person agreed with me that at the base of it, all actions are selected or avoided based on personal, from-self’s-perspective preference for the result, then I would have no more argument with them. But to this point it seems that smiling bandit doesn’t just have a ‘semantic’ disagreement with me - he actually disagrees that all decisions are driven by personal preferences and desires. And so I continue to debate.