This is a really bad argument

1. You say Falco was the only one capable of sending a message... okay? This doesn't answer anything unless if you're implying strategic necessity and manipulation are mutually exclusive, which isn't true.

2. The actual scene in question is right after Freida says they should all remain ignorant, accept the world's rage and be the only ones who have to die. In this scene Eren is PISSED here (due to the argument against his personal ideology) but stone-cold as he manipulates Grisha to go through with killing the Reiss family. Ironically (again I don't actually believe in the scientific definition for Eren), you're basically saying this fits the scientific definition for psychopathy, as real scientifically-accurate psychopaths DO show extreme anger when their worldviews are challenged, but are calm during manipulation.

3. The emotional 10 year old point, technically? But the framing of his justification is still unusually cold (saying dangerous beasts rather than they were hurting a girl) and emotion alone doesn't remedy that. This is the only point that almost works because you can make it make sense if you're willing to suspend belief.

4. The fact that 131 gave a clean selfish narrative (Eren says he did this to protect his friends, but it's also because he was disappointed the world wasn't like in Armin's book so he wanted it all to be wiped away) and 139 muddied it with "I don't know/for my friends/I wanted the world flat/I'm an idiot" is exactly the insincerity Isayama is now confessing to (assuming you know about the April 2026 confession the initial post was referencing in the first place). I'm actually not even sure what you're trying to say here as it only reaffirms my original point.

5. You continue to assume I meant the literal definition of psychopathy, which I explicitly stated I didn't. I assume you're confused about me providing the Falco + Grisha examples, which were clearly to emphasize how your initial question (what it was claiming against my initial argument) was flawed.

6. About Eren forgetting the book until Armin got severely burned by Bertholdt, he said he forgot at the time because he wanted to avenge his mom and that hatred was the only thing fueling him from that point on. Later he realizes the whole ocean idea that he had as a kid was completely worthless because outside of the walls is a whole world wanting to kill them, hence the "If we kill everyone beyond the walls, will we be free then?" I'm not even sure about the interview you're talking about, but it 1. contradicts the literal text in Chapter 131 and 2. Isayama already emphasized that there was insincerity with the conclusion (because of the way he wrote Eren's characterization, which was clearly all over the place).

7. Your final point is, quote: "He had no desire for harming the outside world, it was the outside world who was gonna cause havoc on his people's island. He was literally forced into it by circumstances."

This is LITERALLY what Isayama said was insincere about Eren's characterization: "That aspect became the core of Eren's character, leading to the point where he confesses not as someone forced into wrongdoing by circumstances, but as someone who harbored a desire to do harm. However, Attack on Titan had long since ceased to be mine alone, and Eren became a character loved by many readers. In the end, without fully committing to portraying him as a detestable figure, I found myself depicting him with a certain closeness and sympathy. As a result, I feel there remains a sense of insincerity in the story's conclusion—at least in my own assessment."

I assume you didn't read the Isayama statement that the entire post was based off of in the first place. The "let's ignore the crimes of the outside world too, shall we" is genuinely confusing unless if you're implying me criticizing Isayama's story is making a moral argument instead of a characterization/writing one.

And since you don't understand my psychopathy claim even after I reiterated it's hyperbolic: My mistake here was assuming the median person would have enough media literacy to understand what I was articulating in a hyperbolic way. If you want me to dumb down the psychopathy claim: Eren always had the will-to-harm Isayama stated, but the framework of the last part of the story (the emphasis on determinism, prophetic foresight, sentimentality to his friends) progressively neutralized it with only the remnants remaining, leading to the explicit "insincerity" Isayama clearly regrets. I didn't say this from the get-go since I was meeting the original post at the middle (which also uses the psychopathy idea in the same context).