"Without being aware of it, gb, you provided an excellent description of how the human theory-of-mind works, and why evolution favored its development."

I believe me, I'm aware of it.

"By choosing to display or not display certain emotional signals, a human manipulates the state of other minds. That's what it's all about. Humans, prehumans, hominids, and primates all live(d) in a social context in which how the other members of the group feel about you and behave toward you is the single most important factor determining whether you thrive or starve...and ultimately, whether your genes are propagated or culled. The more accurate the theory-of-mind, the more often the manipulation succeeds, and the better that individual carrying that mind performs."

Generally speaking I don't disagree with above paragraph, other than the emphasis of the above is upon the individual and that this distorts and could mislead one to form wrong conclusions.

"Affecting the bystanders is an interesting side-effect. In the context of a social group, disputes are never just between two individuals. Everyone observing the dispute is drawn into it by their innate empathy, to vicariously feel the emotions of the participants, and usually to take sides. Social primates know how to play to the crowd, to try to gain support from the group that will improve their status and ultimately reproductive success.

This is an election season. Watch the debates and you see this phenomenon in action."

Or just go to a baseball game.

"As for whether it's intellect or emotion that provides motivation, I think you're confusing a goal with a motive. The intellect can define a goal and the means to its attainment, but that only pushes the question back a level. It doesn't explain why the intellect would want to seek the goal. "Want" is an emotional impetus, distinct from "need"."

Yes, but without an intellect one can't translate an emotion into a meaningful action. For example being sad can be debilitating- it's called depression.
As for me seemingly confusing goal with a motive. I merely said one could flip your terms and have as meaningful and accurate statement. And I said either way was inadequate.
As for explaining the difference between goal and motive, I would say without first looking up the definition, that a goal is something one can share with others, and motive connotes an individual's "goal". In other words one could say the motive of the group, but the group's goal is similar in meaning. I say it differs in connotation in that a group's goals are generally known or knowable, whereas the motive of a group *can be* unknown by both the group and those outside the group.
Ok, let see what dictionary says [it certainly won't be the words I used to explain it]

motive: something (as a need or desire) that causes a person to act
synonyms motive, impulse, incentive, inducement, spur, goad.

goal: The purpose toward which an endeavor is directed; an objective.
syn: What one intends to do or achieve: aim, ambition, design, end, goal, intent, mark, meaning, object, objective, point, purpose, target, view, why.

So, let's look at a basic motive of humans and animals- the need to eat. Being hungry isn't an emotion- though one could have many emotions associated with it. Being hungry is a sensation- and this can vary. For example, having one's stomach no longer full, could be associated with being hungry. Or feeling pain and weakness could be sensation of someone who is in more biological need of food.
If one isn't seriously hungry, one can be unaware of any sensation associated with it- one can *forget* to eat- if one is doing something which distracts one's attention.
Or one could stuff your face and *still* feel hungry [or feel some kind/form of emptiness].

At some point one can notice that one is hungry- one's emotional state before noticing one is hungry can vary, and one's emotional reaction after noticing one is hungry can vary- it could remain basically the same, or this may cause one to be very sad or very happy [or whatever emotion].

Your emotional state has little to do with the decision to stuff your pie hole [this not to say that your general emotional state has little affect upon eating habits or "styles" of eating] but if one is in the middle of doing something you consider important, one can choose to ignore the sensation of being hungry, though one may also plan on when you will eat and what you want to eat, or how one will get some food.

When deciding what to eat, various options could and would have various types of emotions/feelings/sensations connected to it. You might crave something with salt in it. You may want sweets, pizza, or whatever. If you decide upon some food, one might have a very strong desire to get that food. You might walk, run, drive a far distance and you may be willing to pay a lot of money for it. Or one might simply want to put something in your stomach as quickly as possible because you have other things more important that you want to do.

"One of the most dangerous things about elevating logic over emotion is that, taken to its logical endpoint, there's no logical reason to even care whether one lives or dies. Isn't it all futile in the end? Don't we all die eventually? Isn't the human lifespan essentially zero compared to infinite time? Does it therefore really matter whether one dies now, or later?"

The desire to be happy is logical and rational- and it's enshrined in America declaration of independence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. (Note: the original hand-written text ended on the phrase "the pursuit of property" rather than "the pursuit of Happiness" but the phrase was changed in subsequent copies in part because it was broader. The latter phrase is used today)."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_Independence

Dennis Prager claims that pursuing happiness is a **moral obligation**- and he wrote a book about it [which I haven't read]. And every Friday devotes a hour discussing that topic {I have listened to quite a few of these}.

A review of "Happiness Is a Serious Problem: A Human Nature Repair Manual" by Dennis Prager:

"...
Nonetheless, it is Dennis Prager's task to prove Emily wrong. Happiness, he insists in his new book, must be taken seriously by everyone. Becoming as happy as we can be is not just something we owe ourselves; instead, as we learn right in Chapter One: "Happiness Is a Moral Obligation." Mr. Prager, a conservative radio host and public speaker, first suspected that happiness was fundamentally altruistic when a woman approached him after one of his lectures. She simply sighed, "I only wish my husband had come to this talk!" Anyone who has run out of ways to cheer up a depressed spouse or inconsolable friend instinctively knows the truth of Prager's insight that "we owe it to our husband or wife, our fellow workers, our children, our friends, indeed to everyone who comes into our lives, to be as happy as we can be." Since this is tricky sometimes, a few pointers are in order.
To Dennis Prager, happiness is a kind of craft, or what in philosophy class is called a techne. If you practice it, you can master it.

First, working at happiness entails "developing attitudes that enable us not to despair." One of these attitudes we are to develop is that life is tragic. Prager points out that if we assume that tragedy is normal, then instead of "waiting for something wonderful to happen" to make us happy, we will be happy by default. Next, we must recognize that our nature is insatiable and we will invariably be dissatisfied. To control this insatiable nature, we should distinguish between "necessary dissatisfaction" about things that we can change, and "unnecessary dissatisfaction" about things we cannot change.
..."
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n5_v50/ai_20443613

"The intellect says that death is just a thing that inevitably happens. It's the emotions that scream "holy shit I don't wanna die!" and kicks the individual in the ass to run away from the sabretooth tiger and dodge the bullet. Only then does the intellect kick in to decide which way to run or hit the ground. Emotions are the horse, logic is the cart. Get them backward and you can't go anywhere."

As I said above, feeling that your stomach is not full is not an emotion. There is a difference between sensation and emotion. The connection between say the sensation of sight or sound and Fear is a very primitive and basic response of humans and other animals. But humans and animals are also curious about the unknown [and death]. The emotion of being Curious has battled the emotion of Fear throughout the ages. What exactly Curious is, is somewhat curious:)