【Character Analysis + Criticism】About Eva Tsunaka-The Perfect Liar (part one FTE)

——Behind the golden toy crown, which is not worth a stiver, what exactly do the hollow eyes of the footless crow that never lands see?

　　　　————————

　　【——This article will conduct a psychological and behavioral analysis of Eva Tsunaka based on the standard of a real person. In order to understand this article,【readers need first to understand the two main models outlined in the ‘eading Tips'】——】

　　In order to avoid confusion with character relationship analysis and the thematic analysis of Chapter 1, this paper focuses on the interpretation of currently known FTE content related to Eva, including some post-class trial content from Chapter 1; the specific plot of Chapter 1 will not be analyzed.

　　Part Two (Main game Analysis) will be discussed later.

　　　　————————

　　[ Notes ]

　　The author dislikes Eva as a person; however, the author greatly appreciates Eva's portrayal as a character.

　　Given that the author dislikes Eva Tsunaka as a human being, this article inevitably includes criticism of Eva. Reader discretion is advised.

　　The author is not a professional.

　　The author does not guarantee the accuracy of every plot detail.

　　The author's writing style may result in a perceived coldness regardless of the subject discussed.

　　This is a Personal views archive; if the reader disagrees, then the reader is welcome to write an article on their own.

　　If this isn't your cup of tea, feel free to close the page.

　　　————————

　　[ read tip ]

　　[The Discrepancy Between Objective Fact and Subjective Perception, and Its Role in Psychoanalysis.]

　　Example:

　　Objective Fact: There is half a glass of water on the table.

　　A: Excellent, there is still half a cup.

　　B: It's terrible; there's only half a cup left.

　　C: Why is there half a glass of water here? Is this a mockery of me?

　　The differing subjective interpretations and descriptions of an objective fact (the presence of half a cup of water) reveal the contrasting thought patterns of A (positive tendencies), B (negative tendencies), and C (delusional paranoia detached from reality).

　　　　————————

　　[The Distinction Between Externally Choice Responsibilities and Self-Choice Strategic Responsibilities]

　　[ Note: To discuss the attribution of responsibility does not equate to accusing the responsible person of moral right and wrong ]

　　[The choice (external/internal) (whether acted upon or not), has a moral dimension → this constitutes responsibility (a neutral noun referring to the factors composing an event) for the event's occurrence.)]

　　Example: Every time A and B meet, A hits B.

　　Factors contributing to this incident include:

　　1. A chooses to hit B

　　2. B chooses to meet with A

　　External Choice Responsibility: A chooses to attack B (A's choice is 100% morally wrong)

　　Self-Choice Strategic Responsibilities: B chooses to meet with A

　　B fulfills their strategic responsibility: no longer meeting with A → avoiding the occurrence of victimization incidents.

　　B does not fulfill their Self-Choice Strategic Responsibilities: continuing to meet with A → repetition of the victimization event.

　　—Note 1. [In the incident where B was beaten after meeting A, regardless of whether B chose to meet A or not, A's choice to assault B (Externally Choice Responsibilities) is entirely A's fault (morally wrong in terms of choice). B does not bear externally chosen responsibilities; rather, B bears neutral Self-Choice Strategic Responsibilities. That is, whether or not B alters their own choices and actions to change the outcome of the beating incident.]

　　[The neutrality of Discuss one's own strategic responsibility: if traffic manuals advise pedestrians to avoid vehicles when crossing the road (Self-Choice Strategic Responsibilities in life, neutral in nature), this does not mean that in a traffic accident, blame the pedestrian for being hit by a drunk driver (who has Externally Choice Responsibilities, and whose choice is morally wrong)]

　　Note 2.[ External choice ≠ is absolutely morally wrong: self-choice ≠ is absolutely morally right. Choices create the existence of responsibility, but moral rightness or wrongness depends on the nature of the choice itself, not whether it is an external or self-choice.]

　　[External/self-choice and moral rightness/wrongness are distinct concepts: For example, in the event of "B's arrest," if B is a criminal who chose to steal (Self-Choice Strategic Responsibilities), and A is the owner who chose to hand B over to law enforcement (Externally Choice Responsibilities), then both A and B are responsible for the event (B's arrest). However, B's personal strategic choice was morally wrong, while A's external choice was morally right.]

[ Supplement to the judgment of moral right and wrong ]

1. Intention

2. process

3. Results

Precedent: A chooses to hand over B to law enforcement agencies:

Intent: to recover property stolen by B (proper intent)

Process: Turn B over to formal law enforcement (process compliance)

Results: the offender was deterred (B) from further perpetration of the crime (positive outcome)

Conclusion: A's choice in the event of"B being arrested" is morally right.

Counterexample: If A chooses lynching B

Intent: to recover property (proper intent)

Process: forced confession by beating (process violation)

Outcome: offender (B) severely injured and disabled (negative outcome)

Conclusion: A 's choice of"Lynching B" is morally wrong (process contamination intention)

　　Note 3. [ Discussing B's strategic responsibility does not equate to forcing B to fulfill that responsibility. The emphasis is on B's awareness of their own strategic responsibility; this does not imply that B necessarily has the conditions to fulfill the responsibility itself in reality. ]

　　[This article assumes the reader understands and accepts the two conceptual models above. ]

　　　　————————

　　Cognitive Compatibility Self-Test:

　　(Readers are invited to take note of their answers.)

　　1. claim The failure of the paper is due to the title classified as:

　　A. verifiable facts

　　B. subjective attribution

　　C. editorial testimony

　　Correct answer: B

　　Ability to Distinguish Between Subjective and Objective.

　　2. To say"Victims can avoid perpetrators" is to emphasize:　　

       A. The victim is at fault

　　B. Self-Choice Strategic Responsibilities survival

　　C. Exculpating the perpetrator

　　| Right Answer: B

　　| Ability to Distinguish Responsibility Types

　　| 3. Eva refuses to have her paper quality inspected.:

　　A. Insufficient Ability

　　B. self-perception bias

　　C. Journalistic Injustice

　　correct answer: B

　　Core Defect Identification

　　Self-test rules:

　　Wrong ≥1→ Please reread "The Water Cup Model and the AB Responsibility Model"

　　All correct → Congratulations! Please continue reading.

　　(To ensure a high-quality discussion, please confirm your understanding of the above-mentioned conceptual models. If you have not yet passed the self-assessment, we welcome you to revisit the models and return with your insights. Your commitment to in-depth analysis is valued more highly than immediate accuracy.)

　　[Attention! ]

　　Statement to Prevent Misinterpretation

　　Those questions test [only the ability to discern basic concepts and do not imply agreement with the author's viewpoint.]

　　Example:

　　- Choose B ≠ endorsement of the text's conclusion regarding Eva's cognitive bias.

　　- Select B = understand the analytical logic that classifies failure to self-check papers as a cognitive issue.

　　　　————————

　　[ important statement ]

　　What you're about to read:

　　>- It is a scalpel, not a mirror →  does not reflect your personal values

　　>-This is analysis, not a verdict → does not pronounce a character's death sentence

　　>-This is a thought-pattern analysis, not a moral war. →doesn't require you to take sides.

　　If you still feel offended, → You may be using the character as a ‘self-projection vehicle'.

　　You have the right to keep different analysis frames, so please protect yourself by closing the page at this point.

　　Prerequisites for Reading This Article:

　　> ✅1: Subjective perception (e.g., ‘y title caused my Failure') ≠ Objective fact

　　> ✅2: Pointing out avoidance strategies (such as avoiding the perpetrator) ≠ to blaming the victim.

　　> ✅3: A complete refusal of self-reflection (e.g., not checking the quality of one's paper) ≈ disconnects from reality.

　　Discussion Principles

　　Discussion Rejected:

　　🚫To smear "strategic analysis" as "victim blaming"

　　Example:  Misrepresenting the suggestion to " Eva should check the quality of papers" as "the journal is blameless" ❌

　　🚫Refuting a verifiable logical chain with "I think", "I feel"

🚫Shifting Focus

Example: but they say.../they are more...

　　🚫 Think the author is responsible for addressing any difficulties readers encounter in comprehension.

　　[The ultimate cognitive test]

　　1. When analyzing "Eva attributes her failure to her title," the author is essentially:

　　A) Accusing Eva of being weak

　　B) Demonstrating attribution bias

　　C) To defend the journal

　　2. The conclusion that the "Victim-acting addiction

　　" can only be substantiated if:

　　A) The victimization experience is not real

　　B) There is a behavior of avoiding responsibility

　　C) The author despises this character.

　　If you disagree with the above premises and principles and choose an answer other than B in the ultimate cognitive test, then this article is likely unsuitable for you.

　　If you agree, please continue reading.

　　　————————

　　[Any of the following behaviors will be considered malicious speculation:]

Including, but not limited to:

Personal attacks

Attacking the author's intentions

Insist on a distorted interpretation after the concept has been clarified

Twist "strategic suggestions" as "victim blaming" even after achieving a perfect score on the self-assessment.

Refuting facts with emotional statements (e.g., ‘ feel/I think')

Ask the author to revise the analytical framework to align with their individual comprehension.

　　[The author has the final right not to reply.]

　　　————————

　　[ Abstract ]

　　This article presents the author's interpretation and analysis of Eva's character, along with the author's personal critique of Eva's way of living as a human being.

　　This article, based on the text, includes an analysis of Eva's character type, thought patterns, and speculation on the psychological causes. It does not involve discussion of the story's themes or interpretation of the original author's intentions.

　　[Note: This analysis focuses solely on the character's psychological profile and includes the author's critique of their philosophy of life; it does not deny the fact of bullying. ]

　　Main text: 10,000 words+

　　　　————————

　　[ overview of impressions ]

　　After reading the first chapter, my first adjective that comes to mind regarding Eva is:

　　Mediocrity (rigid and unprogressive thought patterns)

　　Immaturity (lack of emotional maturity and an underdeveloped sense of self-responsibility)

　　This impression became even clearer after reading FTE, and after reflection, Eva's other characteristics also became more distinct.

　　Greed (the unrestrained acquisition of external resources)

　　Hypocrisy (the significant discrepancy between a self-constructed facade and one's true inner self)

　　　　————————

　　[ Author's Note—Concerning the Analytical Basis of This Article ]

　　Ironically, due to Eva's propensity for deception, I encountered the same problem Damon has (the protagonist): whether or not to fully believe her words.  Ultimately, I decided to believe the objective events she described, but to treat her subjective narrative style, perspective, and motivations with caution.

　　　　————————

　　[Summary of Eva's Characteristics]

　　Prominent personality traits repeatedly observed in FTEs include:

　　Self-deification (overestimation of one's own abilities, creating a sense of superiority beyond the ordinary)

　　Self-centeredness (disregard for the subjectivity of others)

　　Externalization of Responsibility (a habitual attribution of blame to external factors)

　　Validation Addiction (Relying on external affirmation to maintain self-worth)

　　Victim-acting addiction (a behavioral pattern of using victimhood to gain privileges or avoid responsibility)

　　Disregard for the individual will of others

　　——This intertwining of the aforementioned traits ultimately results in a disconnect from reality and an oversimplification of thinking.

　　Below is an individual analysis of the four current FTEs. For each FTE, we will individually examine the aforementioned characteristics.

　　　　————————

　　FTE1:

　　Dialogue Excerpt:

　　"It doesn't...fit well. My ultimate talent. Nothing about it fits. If you throw away the "Ultimate" part, you're left with a corny term which barely defines what I actually do.

　　(Damon;"...and that is?")

　　Well, general math...but more than that.science, literature, aerospace engineering textbooks......all of these things which are leagues above trivial math competitions. The trophies I win relate to math in particular, yeah, but...there's no depth to the "mathlete." It doesn't cover most of what I do.

　　(Damon: "Hold on...science and literature? You're knowledgeable in those fields?")

　　Well, I'm not really well-known for my achievements in those areas...But I do consider myself a bit of an expert, regardless.

　　I'm like a jack-of-all-trades.

　　It's not as if anyone really sees me that way, though.

　　Earlier this year, I wrote a whole paper on an obscure subgenre of western speculative fiction...I spent weeks on it, expecting it to receive a lot of attention from literary critics...but when I published it, ...no one cared, even though I was an Ultimate.

　　（Damon:  Well, your talent isn't really related to writing.）

　　...

　　(Damon: You mentioned science, too. I guess that didn't go over well, either?)

　　None of it went anywhere.

　　I could write a research paper on the theoretical possibility of lightspeed travel, but no one would care, because...

　　(Damon: Because you are not a scientist.)

　　Do you see what I mean about my title being ill-defined? I've been forced into this little box; no one cares about anything I do, unless it involves high school math competition.

　　It's like I'm completely invisible to them."

　　　　————————

　　[ Objective event-Subjective Perspective ]

　　Objective Event: Eva's paper did not receive attention from the professional field

　　The Subjective Perspective of Eva:

　　"I wrote a whole paper on an obscure subgenre of western speculative fiction...I spent weeks on it, expecting it to receive a lot of attention from literary critics...but when I published it... No one cared. Even though I was an Ultimate."

　　→

　　Self-deification, Self-centeredness (believing that as an Ultimate, professional attention was guaranteed)

　　"None of it went anywhere.

　　I could write a research paper on the theoretical possibility of lightspeed travel, but no one would care, because..."

　　"Do you see what I mean about my title being ill-defined? I've been forced into this little box. No one cares about anything I do, unless it involves a high school math competition.

　　It's like I'm completely invisible to them."

　　→

　　Externalization of Responsibility

　　(externalizing the reason for success or failure to the title)

　　Oversimplification of thinking (reduction of complex reality to a single cause (title))

　　Self-centeredness, Disregard for the individual will of others (asserting that she is not being noticed by others is because of her title)

　　Victim-acting addiction (portraying herself as trapped by her title (forced into this little box ), resulting in a lack of attention.  She projects all responsibility onto external factors)

　　Further details are provided below.

　　　————————

　　The General Logic of Eva:

　　My achievements have not been recognized by others because my title doesn't fit, leading others to undervalue my work.

　　This line of reasoning is actually quite flawed. It's an extreme simplification of a cognitive model in order to serve Eva's overall thinking pattern.

　　1

　　For this logic to work, the first condition is that Eva's abilities must be unquestionable.  But we can see that Eva doesn't think about the possibility of her own shortcomings. She skips over potential internal reasons and begins searching for external possibilities. This is actually a manifestation of self-deification: I am perfect, I cannot be wrong.

　　(2)

　　Title = Why others don't value Eva.  This completely ignores the complex realities—no matter how talented or hardworking a person is, they cannot directly “succeed”. For example, in submitting a paper, factors such as poor timing, unsuitable content or topic, and the recipient's personal preferences may all lead to failure. Furthermore, this is subjective speculation:  making an unsubstantiated judgment that others harbor discriminatory intentions towards the title with no evidence. This is a classic manifestation of self-centeredness and Disregard for the individual will of others.

　　(3)

　　And her framing of common academic setbacks (such as papers receiving little attention) as a narrative of ‘unfair treatment due to inappropriate title' is itself a demonstration of Victim-acting addiction.(controlling the moral high ground to garner potential sympathy from the audience(Damon)) and Externalization of Responsibility(avoiding self-reflection on one's abilities or the need for effort).

　　[Example of AB Responsibility Model (Illustrating Externalization of Responsibility)]

　　Possible reasons for the paper's lack of attention may include:

　　Line A (Externally Choice Responsibilities)

　　Disciplinary Bias/reviewer personal tastes, etc.

　　Article Quality Assessment/journal subject requirements, etc.

　　Line B (Self-Choice Strategic Responsibilities)

　　Was the self-cross-domain capability verified? → No

　　Was the suitability of the paper's content assessed? → Not mentioned

　　Was third-party advice sought? → Not mentioned

　　→ If only the external choice responsibility of Line A is pursued, it exposes the externalization of one's own strategic responsibility.

　　[ key points ]

　　Point 1: Based on the above information, it can be seen that even without external objective evidence, Eva remains unquestioningly confident in her self-assessment of being a "jack-of-all-trades expert" with certain success capabilities (just happens to be constrained by titles).  Generally, a person's capabilities need to be tested in reality, but Eva completely trusts her own judgment.

　　This differs from healthy confidence. For example, "I believe tomorrow will be sunny" (an optimistic prediction about the future) and "I am certain tomorrow will be sunny" (an oracular, definitive prediction) are fundamentally different.

　　[Note: Even if  Eva's self-proclaimed "jack-of-all-trades expert" in all fields remains unverified, she still attributes all setbacks to external factors rather than her own capabilities. This logic reveals Eva's underlying assumption: my abilities should naturally be unimpeded—the core manifestation of self-deification. This will prevent her from ever introspecting on and improving her abilities.]

　　Point 2: Interestingly, the raven only rejected the "mathlete" part of the title, fully accepting the "Ultimate" portion. This indicates her acknowledgment of the "social elite" status conferred by the "Ultimate" title, but dissatisfaction with the specific identity defined by the title's content—her dissatisfaction stems not from the label itself, but from its failure to satisfy her avaricious self-definition desires (self-proclaimed  "jack-of-all-trades expert").  She simultaneously craves the privileges and superiority associated with the title while criticizing its perceived "constraints," refusing to shoulder the responsibilities inherent in the title. This is a classic example of hypocrisy.

　　　　————————

　　FTE2:

　　Eva mentioned her past school life.

　　What first struck me was her narrative style.  This wasn't simply a recollection; it was a highly theatrical performance of victimhood delivered to an audience (Damon).

　　Dialogue Excerpt:

　　"Assume you've just adopted a puppy from a shelter, okay? Listen—You bring the dog back. And it's cute and all, but there's a catch. It won't stop shits everywhere. Unfortunately for you and your newly clean apartment, it looks like someone forgot to potty train it. So, how do you get to behave? (Damon: uh... positive reinforcement?) Yeah, that's exactly what they did. (Damon: they?) My School. (Damon: They treat you like a dog?)

　　No. The difference between me and a puppy is... an Owner loves their puppy. A brand new puppy is like a brand new family, it's a living being... I wasn't a living being."

　　"I was just... Potential. My School believes they've had a genius on their hands, because I studied ‘omplex subjects'... So they threw all sorts of expectations onto me, including saving their notoriously bad mathlete team. I was convinced everyone would be impressed by me -- the one eleven-year-old on a team full of sixteen-year-olds.

　　Only the adults were impressed, though. (Damon: Let me guess, the older kids were self-conscious?) duh. People are bound to be rude when the random kid, five grades below them, surpasses their total combined wit..."

　　　　————————

　　[ Objective event-Subjective Perspective ]

　　Objective Events: The school assigned Eva to the mathematics competition team, and she was bullied by older students.

　　The Subjective Perspective of Eva:

　　"they threw all sorts of expectations onto me"→ Externalization of responsibility (forced narrative(threw))

　　"saving their notoriously bad mathlete team"→ Self-deification (messianic complex)

　　"I was convinced everyone would be impressed by me."→ Self-centeredness (starring-audience Fantasy)

　　"surpasses their total combined wit"→ Self-deification

　　(A certainty  without proof)

　　"People are bound to be rude"→ oversimplification of thinking, Disregard for the individual will of others (generalized reference (‘eople'), absolute singular attribution (‘ound to be')

　　Further details are provided below.

　　　　————————

This passage portrays herself as an "Untrained shelter puppy" and the school to a"Dog owner", and then there's the rest ("they threw all sorts of expectations onto me", "saving their notoriously bad mathlete team", "I was convinced everyone would be impressed by me", "People are bound to be rude", the word choice and narrative style lead the audience to a single conclusion: the school = a callous exploiter, Eva = a powerless, wronged genius, and other students = bullies jealous of Eva.

 Through this highly dramatic and explicitly guiding narrative, Eva successfully positions herself as a"pure victim." This passage is designed to manipulate emotions, aiming to elicit sympathy from the audience(Damon) for Eva and aversion toward the school and other students.

　　　　————————

　　[Note:  I do not deny the veracity of Eva's experiences; however, in psychological analysis, how a person subjectively perceives and describes the past is more significant than the objective facts of what actually happened.]

　　　　—————————— --

　　But Damon did not entirely follow Eva's lead. And His two interventions successfully exposed the performative nature of Eva's narrative.

　　Damon: "That's a funny way to say you provoked them."(subtly suggesting that Eva might also bear some Self-Choice Strategic Responsibilities for the incident.)

　　Eva's response to this is to immediately defend herself (I didn't! If anything, I tried to keep to myself...But when you're the anchor  keeping a ship from sinking, you have to do your job.)

　　　　————————

　　[Note: Self-Choice Strategic Responsibilities

≠ Right or wrong, having Self-Choice Strategic Responsibilities

≠ Being at fault (morally wrong).  Eva may bear some strategic responsibility for the bullying incident ≠ It was her fault that she was bullied.]

　　[Example of AB Responsibility Model (Illustrating Externalization of Responsibility)]

　　Possible causes of the bullying of Eva include:

　　Line A (External Choice Responsibility): School chooses to ignore/Older students bully out of jealousy (100% moral wrong of the bullies)/No one chooses to offer help, etc.

　　Line B (Self-Choice Strategic Responsibilities):

　　Try to avoid the bully? → Not mentioned

　　Consider lowering her competition score to avoid provoking the other party? → Not mentioned

　　Try to withdraw from the mathlete team? → Not mentioned

　　→  If only the external choice responsibility of Line A is pursued, it exposes the externalization of one's own strategic responsibility.

　　[Note:  This model is a simplified illustration of the difference between external and self-strategic responsibility, and its operational mode. It cannot be directly applied to complex real-world situations.  Factors such as Eva's situation (minor/age gap/social pressure, etc.) would make it more difficult for her to assume self-strategic responsibility. The key is not necessarily the actual fulfillment of responsibility, but the awareness of the "possibility" of self-strategic responsibility.]

　　　　————————

　　This sudden, vehement reaction and self-defense are a response to Damon's "You provoked them. " Eva completely rejects the possibility of bearing any Self-Choice Strategic Responsibilities.

For the situation, she must immediately justify her actions. She is practically trying to convince Damon that she is not at fault (for example, by using "when‘you'are," "‘you' have to" to forcibly draw the other party into her scenario). She is afraid to explore any potential proactive role she played in the interaction.

　　Her self-comparison to an ‘anchor preventing a ship from sinking' while simultaneously describing the math competition team as ‘notoriously bad' reveals a savior complex.  This abrupt shift in self-metaphor (from ‘puppy' to ‘anchor') contradicts her previous victim narrative. (The metaphor of ‘I am the anchor' itself reflects her tendency toward self-deification.)

　　[Note:  Emotional outpouring ≠ Manipulative performance. Eva's narrative is carefully designed and manipulative. (For example, the puppy analogy evokes the audience's (Damon's) desire to protect and rescue.) When Damon does not show sympathy as per the script, she immediately becomes defensive, directly changing her narrative strategy (from a helpless puppy to a steady anchor preventing the ship from sinking). This reaction exposes the manipulative intent of the performance and the instrumental nature of her narrative—she will choose to play whatever role elicits the greatest sympathy or occupies the moral high ground.]

　　[Note: the blame for bullying (moral wrong) is always with the perpetrator, but exploring whether the victim may have unwittingly contributed to or perpetuated the harmful situation is key to breaking the cycle. But the problem with Eva is that she completely refuses to explore this neutral possibility of her own Self-Choice Strategic Responsibilities (e.g., Damon's"You've provoked them), insisting instead on maintaining  the iconography of her perfectly innocent victim.]

　　Eva's narrative strategy here primarily consists of three points:

　　1. Emotional Blackmail: ("shelter puppy", "I wasn't a living being") to evoke the audience's (snake's) protective instincts and desire to save.

　　2. Responsibility deflection: ("dog owner," "they threw all sorts of expectations onto me," "I was convinced everyone would be impressed by me," "People are bound to be rude") attributes one's own circumstances entirely to external factors.

　　3. Elevation of Moral Standing:  ("saving their notoriously bad mathlete team," "the anchor keeping a ship from sinking") creates a sense of sacrificial nobility, that of a forced savior.

　　　　————————

　　Later, Eva mentioned that mathematics competitions could also bring her the recognition and credentials she needed.

　　Damon replied, "Anything for the college credits, huh?"

　　Damon observed Eva gritting her teeth. Eva disliked the implication that she harbored personal ambitions or that her experiences on the math competition team weren't entirely negative. She was extremely sensitive about revealing her self-interest. This further fractured the image of the perfect ‘selfless savior' she had cultivated – she also needed and desired the personal benefits that the competition results offered.

　　Afterwards, Eva mentioned that her participation in the mathematics competition had not been as she expected.  She had hoped for fun and the admiration of others, but had not anticipated the unkindness of others. Damon felt sorry for her.

　　[Note: While it is regrettable that Eva's expectations were not met, the possibility of unmet expectations is a normal occurrence. Objective reality cannot fulfill all of one's expectations. The presence of such idealistic expectations without the psychological preparedness for their potential failure reveals an oversimplification in Eva's thinking.]

　　——This is a classic case of Victim-acting addiction:

 Manipulating the narrative to reduce complex circumstances and interpersonal relationships to an undeniable, one-sided persecution. This serves to satisfy a self-pitying mentality, garnering emotional attention, sympathy, and the advantageous moral high ground (by employing a victim narrative). It is a greedy extortion of other people's emotions and self-interest (as highlighted by the pursuit of university credit). The repeated alteration of self-analogies to suit the current situation (puppy vs. anchor) exposes the manipulative and utilitarian hypocritical nature of this behavior.

　　Damon's two precise interventions allowed us to glimpse beneath Eva's performance, revealing her true defensive reactions (such as the immediate, vehement denial, "I didn't!" and the gritting of her teeth). These instinctive responses offer a far more accurate portrayal of her true nature than her own narrative.

　　　————————

　　FTE3:

　　Eva's account of her attempt to alter her title.

　　Dialogue Excerpt:

　　- "Bweh... You think I didn't try that? After receiving my talent, I email them every day. They started ignoring my emails, so I started calling them, and they ignored me, too. Eventually, I just show up in person to their main institute in person. That was a six-hour train ride, by the way. I lugged a huge portfolio with me -- basically my entire life's worth condensed into five hundred or so pages. You know what they said? They said that I had to be the Ultimate mathlete. Because if I wasn't , no one else would be."

　　(Damon's assessment: ...There's a reason second place doesn't get the gold medal.)

　　"Just picture yourself in my shoes, okay? You've spent your whole life studying all kinds of fields, and all you'll get in return is a dumb title which'll define the rest of your life. They'll put it on my gravestone: Here lies the girl who could barely solve Riemann's stupid hypothesis."

　　　　————————

　　[ objective event-Subjective Perspective ]

　　Objective Fact: The UTP rejected the request to revise the title.

　　The Subjective Perspective of Eva:

　　"You know what they said? They said that I had to be the Ultimate mathlete. Because if I wasn't, no one else would be."

　　→ Victim-acting addiction (positioning oneself as unfairly treated by the UTP to avoid acknowledging the unreasonableness of one's own demands), self-centeredness (presuming the UTP should make an exception), Disregard for the individual will of others

　　(Ignoring the UTP's adherence to regulations and the individual rights of top achievers in other fields)

　　"Just picture yourself in my shoes, okay? You've spent your whole life studying all kinds of fields, and all you'll get in return is a dumb title which'll define the rest of your life. They'll put it on my gravestone: Here lies the girl who could barely solve Riemann's stupid hypothesis."

　　→Externalization of responsibility (assigning the responsibility for changing their own lives to UTP), Victim-acting addiction (exaggerating and dramatizing future consequences to avoid future life responsibilities), oversimplification of thinking (obtaining a title = determining the rest of one's life = epitaph inscription)

　　Further details are provided below.

　　　　————————

　　[ Eva's narrative style ranges from listing emails and phone calls that were ignored to taking a six-hour train ride to to the research institute carrying a 500-page resume (emphasizing the physical burden) and finally recounting UTP's response:  "You know what they said? They said that I had to be the Ultimate mathlete. Because if I wasn't, no one else would be."(conveying a cold, uncompromising tone)—May lead the audience to perceive UTP as an unfair, ruthless, and authoritarian system, and Eva as a powerless victim, unfairly treated. But is this truly the case?)

　　This mode of thinking is fundamentally flawed.

　　1. First, detaching from Eva's narrative, from an objective standpoint, UTP's approach was actually not problematic.

　　Damon's assessment here is incisive: "There's a reason second place doesn't get the gold medal."

　　The title can only be awarded to her (she had to be the Ultimate mathlete)—because she is the best in mathematics competitions (Because if she wasn't, no one else would be.).

　　Failing to award her the title, or making a special exception for her request, would conversely demonstrate UTP's unfairness (UTP bestows titles based on objectively top-tier achievements; making exceptions disregards the rights of top achievers in other fields—they also receive titles due to their top-tier abilities in their respective fields).

　　However, Eva seems to believe that UTP [should] make an exception for her, disregarding regulations; otherwise, it is considered "unjust." This demonstrates extreme self-centeredness, Victim-acting addiction, and Disregard for the individual will of others.

　　2. Secondly, she has consistently delegated life choices to others: expecting UTP to change her title → UTP's refusal to do so → her future predetermined.  This is a manifestation of externalizing responsibility and a conclusion stemming from oversimplified thinking.

　　However, if she truly wished to shed the title, it would be simple—since the title was bestowed upon her due to exceptional competition results, all she needed to do was lose.

　　But she is incapable of doing so, because she lacks the resolve for genuine change. She relishes the superiority and privileges afforded by the "Ultimate" title, and though she claims to detest the label of a mathematics competition winner, she simultaneously relies on it to excuse her inaction and lack of success.

　　3. The belief that one's future life will be determined by this is also an unfounded and unrealistic catastrophic assumption (the extreme inference that maintaining the current title is directly equivalent to an epitaph).  Essentially, it is an excuse for one's irresponsibility/failure in the future — since my life has already been decided, whatever I do is useless. This is also a manifestation of externalizing responsibility and a Victim-acting addiction.

　　　　————————

　　[Example of AB Responsibility Model (Illustrating Externalization of Responsibility)]

　　The reasons why Eva could not shed the title of mathematics competition winner are:

　　Line A(External Choice Responsibility) :

　　UTP Maintenance Selection: Fairness and Impartiality; No Exceptions for Privileged Access

　　Line B (Self-Choice Strategic Responsibilities):

　　Choose to intentionally lose the match and forfeit the title? → Not selected

　　Choose to redouble her efforts to surpass the title? → Not selected

　　Choose to accept the title and specialize in the field she has been selected?  →Not selected

　　→ If only the external choice responsibility of Line A is pursued, it exposes the externalization of one's own strategic responsibility.

　　　　————————

　　The practical and objective costs of Eva's actions:

　　Sending emails/making phone calls (almost costless)

　　Taking a six-hour train journey (a reality for some commuters daily)

　　Carrying a 500-page resume, requesting UTP to amend the title (a one-time action, the burden is far less than that of an ordinary worker; the difficulty in obtaining a response from UTP is less than that of an ordinary citizen dealing with personal matters at an institution)

　　Bearing the consequences of her own strategic decisions:

　　Losing the competition and the title: forfeiting the privileges of an Ultimate elite.

　　To significantly improve oneself and transcend the title, one must acknowledge that they are not an expert in all fields.

　　Accepting the title and specializing in one's field: considering the title of ‘Ultimate mathlete' to be ‘corny' and ‘no depth'.

　　[Key details]:

　　1. Eva mentioned bringing a 500-page self-achievement resume to UTP to request a title change—this is essentially the same issue as in FTE1. Eva's achievements have not been externally validated (objective standard); personal self-validation (subjective assumption) cannot serve as grounds for an institution to modify a title. However, Eva presumptuously believed it could.  Further, Eva's belief that UTP has an obligation to read 500 pages of self-recommendation materials demonstrates a pathological overestimation of her own importance. This mindset once again reflects Eva's self-deification and Self-centeredness characteristics.

　　2. Eva's statement, "You've spent your whole life studying all kinds of fields, and all you'll get in return is a dumb title which'll define the rest of your life. They'll put it on my gravestone: Here lies the girl who could barely solve Riemann's stupid hypothesis." is, besides the aforementioned catastrophic assumptions and externalization of responsibility, an extremely dramatic and exaggerated monologue. （When Damon is not swayed by her victimization narrative, she immediately tries to drag Damon into her narrative by“Pcture yourself in my shoes”） This reflects a strong sense of self-pity and an intention to manipulate emotions, aiming to solicit sympathy from the audience (Damon).

　　Damon's reply here contains a very interesting point.

　　——Writing a few papers about science and space doesn't make you the best in those fields... but winning every single mathletics competition? It makes sense why you're considered the  Ultimate mathlete.

　　This passage reveals reality: the true reason why Eva hasn't obtained other title aside from Ultimate Mathlete—she isn't the best in other fields. She isn't the all-around genius she imagines herself to be.

　　This FTE once again exposes Eva's manipulative nature. Through narrative manipulation, she attempts to deliberately lead the audience (Damon) to ignore the true objective facts (the reasons why UTP does not change the title), (why Eva cannot obtain other titles), and (potential solutions to Eva's predicament), thereby harvesting sympathy, indulging in self-pity, and justifying her inaction.

　　Yet, while making no attempt at self-improvement, she expects the world to conform to her expectations (e.g., that UTP should exceptionally change her title). This reveals a disregard for reality, a self-centered greed—she wants the privileges treatment of an Ultimate title, wants the privileges exception of UTP, and wants complete privileges exemption from future setbacks.

　　This repackaging of the aforementioned unrestrained greed as a victim narrative, to maintain her image as an innocent genius, represents yet another extreme manifestation of Eva's hypocritical nature.

　　　　————————

　　FTE4:

　　Eva explained the Riemann Hypothesis to Damon in a very creative manner.

　　Eva's perspective: "If my Ultimate talent was related to pure mathematics, I'm definitely think that paper would've made it big."

　　[Definitely: adv. Explicitly, precisely; certainly, surely.]

　　The"Definitely" here is A self-oracular prophecy of certainty.

　　This essentially summarizes the psychological patterns of Eva revealed in the previous several FTEs.

　　"If my Ultimate talent was related to pure mathematics, I'm definitely think that paper would've made it big."→better title= success.

　　This is an oversimplification of thinking, a clear manifestation of externalizing responsibility.  She reduces a complex problem requiring a synthesis of personal abilities, opportunities, and effort into a simplistic label, shifting all responsibility to external factors (title issues/prejudice from others). This demonstrates a significant disconnect from reality.

　　And Eva's mentions of her accomplishments are almost invariably linked to external validation. This reveals that the fundamental purpose of her research and studies is to continuously seek external affirmation to reinforce her self-worth and satisfy her addiction to validation, rather than a genuine, intrinsic interest in the field itself. This lack of genuine passion prevents her research from reaching its full potential, as true mastery requires enthusiasm for the subject matter or profession itself.

　　 (As Damon stated: Even if your papers don't generate the kind of buzz you wish they did...... isn't the point of writing them to expand your own knowledge of the subject?)

　　I'm talented = Guaranteed success → Success and recognition are my birthright as a gifted individual.

　　(Self-centeredness)(Self-deification)(disconnecting from reality)(Validation Addiction)

　　↓

　　Reality check (failure) →It must be title issues + discrimination

　　(externalizing responsibility)(Disregard for the individual will of others)(self-centeredness)(Self-deification)(disconnecting from reality)(Victim-acting addiction)

　　↓

　　Title limits me + institutional injustice → the rest of my life is defined

　　(Victim-acting addiction)(externalizing responsibility)(disconnecting from reality)(Self-deification)(self-centeredness)

　　↓

　　I have talent =Guaranteed success (oversimplification of thinking)(circular reasoning)

　　(Note: This model does not deny the mathematical abilities of Eva; rather, it points out the operational mechanism by which they transform their abilities into tools for privileged acquisition and guarantees of success.)

　　　　————————