@jacobolus is correct IMO, according to these data, empathy can't be described as predictor of math ability.

See http://www.nature.com/articles/srep23011/figures/1

An outlier group of mathy kids turn out to have poor (but not the poorest) empathy skills. The rest of the cohort isn't skewed, at all.

I am glad it was noted. I don't really have time to read this (edit: and the comment by jacobolus saves me the effort). I have good empathy and social skills and innate math ability. My ex husband and our oldest son both suck at all three of those.

I think it is entirely fair to say that some oddball subgroup is skewing the results. It is no different from discussing mean, median and mode in real estate data.

Ever heard of the book "How to lie with statistics"?

I don't see how you can discredit the study by citing three data points. The plural of anecdote is not data.

You are completely misinterpreting my remark. I in no way was discrediting the study based on three data points. I was interested in reading it because of three data points, but I don't really have the time for it. Fortunately, someone else read it and found a glaring flaw and that is sufficient for my personal level of interest at this time, thus I won't be wasting my limited time on this today.

"thus I won't be wasting my limited time on this today"

That seems debatable as you have taken the time to comment on this story multiple times. I guess we all have opinions though.

My opinion about how I choose to use my time and what I have time for is the only one that counts. It isn't open to debate. You are basically engaging in a personal attack, for no apparent reason. Attacking me personally in no way adds to the discussion here. Do you have something to say about whether or not the original article has merit/is worth actually reading/etc?

If not, it would be extremely nice if more people followed not only the letter of the guidelines here but also the spirit and didn't engage in ad hominems or other smear campaigns.