Pffft. She gave the game away early on in the article:

"When we began writing about women who love psychopaths, anti-socials, sociopaths and narcissists, we already 'assumed' that maybe you did have too much empathy (as well as other elevated temperament traits). We just didn't know how much, or why. When we began the actual testing for the research of the book 'Women Who Love Psychopaths', we learned just 'how much' empathy you had."

She "assumed" (does she not understand the use of quotation marks, or does she figure her assumptions aren't assumptions, but fact?) the conclusion for a book she was writing, THEN did "research" for it (quotation marks very much intentional). And lo and behold it showed exactly what she wanted it to(!) And you're right, flowerbells, she doesn't give much detail about these (conveniently self-serving) studies. People who use good methodology tell you exactly what parameters their study has, because they don't expect your blind faith. Research should be clear of prejudice, well set-up and PRECEDE conclusions, let alone book writing.

Leaving all that aside, are we still really taking exclusive sides on nature vs. nurture?! It's BOTH. Neither has exclusive universal domain on behavior.