Now, altruism is alleged contradictory because if someone knowingly behaves altruistically, he must choose to do so. If he chooses to do so, it is by definition (they say) "selfish" because he finds it in his own interests to act altruistically. It is the acting individual who must recognize, organize, and prioritize, and then act. A behavior consistent with the priorization must necessarily satisfy the want expressed by the acting individual in his priorites. Therefore, his altruism is only to serve his own, submerged wants. He is really "rationally egoistic." A "proof" is sometimes offered in the argument that altruists feel good when they give. Therefore they are actually "egoistic" because they, like the egoist, are really acting to increase their own stock of positive feelings.
Of course, people do behave altruistically. And they do so without contradiction, even when it makes them feel good.
Here is why: the definition of altruistic versus egoistic behavior is not created primarily with reference to the process of prioritizing and acting. Rather, the essence of the distinction is found in the intent of the individual. An individual acts (egoistically) towards the self because he intends the beneficiary of the action to be the self. An individual acts towards the other because he intends the beneficiary of the action to be the other.
Therefore, an egoist is never "altruistic" when he acts towards others if his true interests are his own self-aggrandizement, The intent of the behavior is, in fact, what defines it as manipulative. This remains true even if the egoist is so neurotic and fearful of others that he spends his entire life completely serving others in order to reduce his sense of risk and anxiety. His intention remains the benefit of his own self.
The reverse argument applies against the "guilty by happiness" charge against the altruist. Whether the (true!) altruist is made happy or not is inconsequential to whether he acts towards others, and therefore inconsequential to the definition of "altruism." (Contrarily, of course, if the achievement of happiness IS the goal of the altruist, and not the welfare of others, he is indeed an egoist!)
In summary, the fact that an altruist must be definition recognize, organize, and prioritize does not deny altruism because it has nothing to do what behaviors are prioritized and chosen, something I would rather think the dictionary writers of the world knew when they decided to keep the word. And the same is trivially true of egocentrifugality. The fact that the centrifugal person necessarily acts towards others because he must prioritize does not mean that he is egocentric.