/sci/ - Science & Math

Women are innately wired to be sociopaths. The average woman fits 18 out of 20 criteria on the Hare Psychopathy Checklist, a diagnostic tool used in forensic psychiatry. The only reason she doesn't get the full 20 is because she doesn't commit violent crime.

The blue-pilled slut-enabling beta cucks of /sci/ will of course deny this fact by hiding behind their redditesque "psychology not le science" maymay, so they can keep up the pathetic illusion that "le somewhere out there must be le good women". Manchildren prefer to live in denial, prefer to see feminism as the source of degeneracy instead of only a symptom, prefer to look away and refuse to acknowledge the inherently sociopathic nature of women.

It doesn't matter how intelligent they are if they don't use their intelligence. They could be high IQ supergeniuses but it doesn't mean shit because they are immature sociopathic children whose life is devoid of academic ambitions and only consists of rejecting beta manlets and taking as much Chad cock as possible.

I'm usually all against the "psychology isn't science" meme. But pic related make me wonder, how is it possible that psychology defines "sociopathy" to be an abnormal condition when its definition fits 99% of women?

Initially I thought the poster in the pic was exaggerating or using his own made up criteria, but then then I did some research on my own and found

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy_Checklist#Items

The Hare Psychopathy Checklist is apparently used in forensic psychiatry to assess the degree of psychopathy of a convicted criminal. And again looking at the 20 items in the link, the average woman fits all of them except juvenile delinquency and criminal versatility, which means a total score of 18/20 on the psychopathy scale.

What is wrong here?

Why would you want to give half your money and all your time to a parasitic sociopath?

>>7136582
They have primitive feelings like animals but they cannot into higher emotions like guilt or love.