receive a gift that speaks to “the wild self, the passionate self, the romantic self.

[keannu]

This is really hard to understand,
1.What does "The rest of me resists" mean?
2.What does "counterexample" mean here? It seems like a supporting example as the followin example proved the practical notion. It's all confusing.
3.What do you think the last line means?

mo3-34
ex) “The economist in me says the best gift is cash,” writes Alex Tabarrok, an economist and blogger. “The rest of me resists .” He offers a good counterexample to the practical notion that the ideal gift is an item we would have bought for ourselves: Suppose someone gives you $100, and you buy a set of tires for your car.This is what maximizes your utility . Still, you might not be very happy if your lover gave you car tires for your birthday. In most cases, Tabarrok points out, we wish the gift giver would buy us something less ordinary. From our intimates at least, we’d rather receive a gift that speaks to “the wild self, the passionate self, the romantic self.”

 

[Grumpy]

It's all about the fact that each one of us has many different facets to our character, and these various aspects may not be obvious to others - or even to ourselves. So, taking each of your points in order:
1. Tabarrok is a professional economist, and that side of his character - let's call it the "rational" part - tells him that the best gift is cash. However, the other part of his character - let's call it his more "romantic" or "imaginative" side [ie the rest of me]- tells him that cash is a boring gift. Hence, 'the rest of me resists'.
2. It's not a supporting example. The proposition is that the ideal gift [ie something bought for you by someone else] is an item we would have bought for ourselves. However, what he is saying is that we generally buy things for ourselves based on our rational character; hence the car tyres [British spelling]. He would be disappointed if someone close to him bought him car tyres as a gift, so his example disproves the proposition.
3. What we want others to buy us as a gift is something out of the ordinary; something our rational self would never think of buying; something extravagant; something silly, perhaps; or something romantic. In other words, we want our intimates [ie those people who know us really well] to be able to see beyond the rational, professional face we show to the world; to identify the other aspects of our character [the wild self, the passionate self, the romantic self], and to buy us a gift that appeals to one or more of them.

 

[Raymott]

"Counterexample" doesn't mean simply "not an example" of Rule A. It's specifically an example of where Rule A is contradicted.
Many things aren't examples of a rule, but they aren't necessarily counterexamples either.
As Grumpy says, a counterexample disproves the proposition.

 

[keannu]

Thanks a lot! As it's kind of hard - but I understood roughly 80% - I need to know if "for ourselves" means "for the benefit of ourselves" or "on our own" as it's dubious. If it is made clear, and I undestand the relationship of "cash" here, I will completely understand.
So far, my understanding is that you would like a present determined not by your rational thinking, but by others' emotional, unexpected ideas that can satisfy such parts of yours.


ex)that the ideal gift [ie something bought for you by someone else] is an item we would have bought for ourselves. However, what he is saying is that we generally buy things for ourselves based on our rational character;

 

[Grumpy]

In this context, "for ourselves" means both "for the benefit of ourselves" and "on our own". I decide I need something, so I go to a shop [by myself] and I buy something to meet that need [to benefit myself].
Cash is money.
I agree with the remainder of your understanding.