I think I’ve misled you and a few others with my way of expressing myself here. When I say I “like” micro, I mean I like working through the puzzles and they make logical/mathematical sense *within their own restrictions* (i.e. they’re internally consistent by and large). I didn’t mean I think that anything micro textbooks say is *true* or empirically robust.
With macro, by contrast, I don’t even know what it would be to assess its truth, since I can’t even make logical sense of the models.
I agree that micro fails as an empirical theory of actual human choice. But by the same token logic fails as an empirical theory of human inference. Logic is of course dealing with idealised ‘optimum’ inference, not the way humans typically infer. And some marginalists (e.g. Jevons) saw micro as doing the same with choice.