The popular assumption about empathy, repeated across most of contemporary psychology, ethics, education, and public discourse, is that it is one of the unambiguously good human capacities. The empathic person feels what other people feel, understands their suffering, and is for that reason motivated to act in ways that reduce suffering rather than cause it. The assumption is intuitively appealing and, until recently, has been broadly shared across most of the scientific and clinical disciplines that study human behaviour.

The peer-reviewed evidence of the past two decades has substantially complicated the picture.

Empathy, on the strongest current reading of the social neuroscience and personality literature, is selective rather than universal. It is exhaustible rather than inexhaustible. It is exploitable rather than reliable. And in some cases, it can be one of the cognitive resources that the most dangerous personalities in the population use most effectively against the people they are harming.

The Heym 2020 study

In 2020, Nadja Heym and colleagues at Nottingham Trent University published a peer-reviewed study in the journal Personality and Individual Differences that used a statistical technique called latent profile analysis to identify distinct personality patterns within a sample of 991 adults. The participants completed standardised measures of empathy and of the three personality traits collectively known as the Dark Triad: narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. The Dark Triad has been studied since the early 2000s as a cluster of socially aversive but non-clinical personality traits that show consistent associations with manipulation, exploitation, and reduced concern for others.

The standard assumption in the personality literature, before the Heym study, was that high empathy and high Dark Triad traits were essentially mutually exclusive. The empathic person was, by definition, not the narcissistic or Machiavellian person. The latent profile analysis tested this assumption.

It did not hold up.

The Heym team identified four distinct profiles in the sample. The Typicals (approximately 34 per cent) had moderate empathy and low Dark Triad traits. The Empaths (approximately 33 per cent) had high empathy and low Dark Triad traits. The Dark Triad group (approximately 13 per cent) had low empathy and high Dark Triad traits, matching the standard assumption in the literature. The fourth group, comprising approximately 19 per cent of the sample, had high empathy combined with high Dark Triad traits. The team called this group the Dark Empaths.

The Dark Empaths were not a hypothesised construct or a clinical category. They were a statistical pattern that emerged from the data, in approximately one in five participants. The proportion has since been broadly replicated in follow-up studies on samples from different countries.

What the dark empath profile actually shows

The follow-up analyses in the Heym study found that Dark Empaths shared some characteristics with each of the other two relevant groups but differed from both in specific ways. Like the standard Dark Triad group, the Dark Empaths showed elevated rates of indirect aggression, including gossip, rumour spreading, social exclusion, and the strategic damage of other people’s reputations. Like the standard Empaths, they showed higher emotional understanding of others and more accurate perception of other people’s mental states.

The combination produced what the team described as an “antagonistic core with empathy.” The Dark Empaths were not simply Dark Triad individuals with a softer surface presentation. The empathy was real, on the measurement instruments used. What distinguished the Dark Empaths from typical empaths was not the absence of empathy but the use to which empathy was put.

Empathy, on this reading, is a cognitive tool. It can be used to identify suffering in others and to reduce that suffering. It can also be used to identify suffering in others and to exploit it. The Heym team’s evidence suggests that approximately a fifth of the adult population is using it for the second purpose at least as often as the first, even while scoring as highly empathic on standard measures.

A short video explains more about the psychology behind dark empaths and why they are so hard to spot – click here to watch it.

Empathy is selective

The Dark Empath finding sits within a broader scientific reassessment of empathy that has been gathering peer-reviewed evidence for approximately two decades.

The most fundamental challenge to the popular framing comes from the social neuroscience research showing that empathy is selective rather than universal. Functional magnetic resonance imaging studies have consistently found that the same neural circuits that activate when a person observes pain in an in-group member fail to activate, or activate substantially less, when the same person observes pain in an out-group member. The effect has been measured across racial, national, religious, political, and team-affiliation categories. People do not, on the neural evidence, feel the same empathy for everyone. They feel substantially more empathy for people who are like them.

The selective activation of empathy is one of the most consistently replicated findings in social neuroscience. It also has direct implications for how empathy operates as a moral guide. A moral system based on empathy is, by the neural evidence, a system that systematically over-weights the suffering of the in-group and under-weights the suffering of the out-group. This is not a bug in the empathy system. It appears to be how the empathy system was designed by evolution to operate.

Empathy is exhaustible

The second major challenge to the popular framing comes from the empathy fatigue research. Tania Singer and Olga Klimecki of the Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences published a foundational paper in Current Biology in 2014 that examined the neural and behavioural consequences of sustained exposure to the suffering of others. The findings, which have since been replicated across multiple populations, indicate that prolonged empathic engagement with suffering activates the same neural pain pathways in the empathiser as in the person being empathised with. Over time, sustained empathic engagement produces measurable distress, anxiety, and depression in the empathiser.

The Singer and Klimecki paper made a further distinction that has become increasingly important in the empathy literature. Empathy, in the technical sense the team used, is the affective sharing of another person’s emotional state. Compassion is different. Compassion involves caring about the suffering of others without sharing it in the same direct affective sense. The two states activate different neural networks. Empathy activates the anterior insula and anterior cingulate cortex, the same regions that process physical pain. Compassion activates the ventral striatum, the medial orbitofrontal cortex, and the ventral tegmental area, the regions that process reward and motivated action.

The practical implication of the distinction is that compassion is sustainable in ways that empathy is not. The healthcare worker who maintains compassion for patients across a thirty-year career does not do so by feeling the patients’ pain on an ongoing basis. The patients’ pain, sustained at that intensity over decades, would damage the worker’s mental health. What the long-career healthcare worker has typically learned to do is to care for patients without sharing their distress, which is a different and more durable cognitive state.

The Bloom case

The most prominent recent popular articulation of these findings is the 2016 book Against Empathy: The Case for Rational Compassion by the Yale psychologist Paul Bloom. The book drew on the social neuroscience and personality research described above to argue that empathy, properly defined, is a poor guide to moral judgment. Bloom argued that the same evidence supporting empathy’s selectivity and exhaustibility also supported a substantial reorientation of how psychology and ethics should treat empathy.

The Bloom argument is not that empathy is bad. The argument is that empathy is a specific cognitive capacity that operates in specific ways and has specific consequences, some of which are good and some of which are not. The popular framing in which empathy is the moral foundation of human goodness does not survive contact with the empirical evidence. What does survive contact with the evidence is a more limited claim: empathy is one of several cognitive resources that humans use in their social and moral lives, with both benefits and costs that depend on how it is deployed.

The Bloom case has been contested by other researchers, including the developmental psychologist Jamil Zaki of Stanford University, who argues that empathy can be trained and refined rather than abandoned. The disagreement is genuine and ongoing in the peer-reviewed literature. What is not in dispute is that the previous consensus, in which empathy was treated as unambiguously good and the only question was how to increase it, is no longer scientifically defensible on the available evidence.

The honest limitations

Several methodological caveats apply to the literature described above.

The Dark Empath construct, while peer-reviewed, is relatively new. The Heym 2020 study has been replicated in some follow-up work but not yet across the breadth of populations and cultures that would establish it as a robust personality category. The 19 per cent proportion identified in the original sample may differ in samples from other cultures, age groups, or socioeconomic contexts. The construct is genuinely supported by the available evidence but should be treated as a current scientific hypothesis rather than as an established personality category.

The neural research on empathy and compassion, while strong, is based largely on laboratory measures of brief emotional responses to specific stimuli. The relationship between laboratory neural patterns and the empathy people actually exercise in their daily lives is plausible but not perfectly direct. The Singer and Klimecki framework has been broadly accepted in social neuroscience but is not the only available model.

The in-group and out-group selectivity of empathy has been measured robustly but is also context-dependent. The same individual can show strong empathy for an out-group member in some circumstances and reduced empathy for the same person in others. The selectivity is not a fixed personality trait but a context-sensitive cognitive bias.

What it means

Several things follow from the differentiated picture of empathy that are worth saying clearly.

The first is that empathy is not, on the strongest current reading of the evidence, a reliable moral compass. It is a cognitive capacity that operates selectively, depletes with use, and can be deployed by people whose intentions are not aligned with the welfare of those they are empathising with. The popular framing in which empathy is the foundation of human goodness underestimates each of these complications.

The second is that the alternative the peer-reviewed literature points to is not the abandonment of empathy but the recognition that compassion is a distinct and more durable mental state. Compassion does not require feeling another person’s pain. It requires caring about another person’s welfare. The distinction has measurable neural correlates and measurable practical consequences for how the two capacities can be sustained across time.

The third is that the existence of the Dark Empath profile, which approximately a fifth of adults appear to display, has practical implications for how individuals navigate their personal and professional relationships. The standard heuristic that emotional understanding equals safety is not, on the available evidence, reliable. Someone can read another person’s emotional state with substantial accuracy and use that reading to manipulate rather than to help. The popular framing that the most dangerous personalities are emotionally cold is, on the Heym evidence, incomplete. Some of them are emotionally warm and using that warmth strategically.

The fourth, on the strongest current reading of fifty years of research that has now substantially shifted in its conclusions, is that empathy is real, important, and useful, but it is not what it has been popularly assumed to be. It is one cognitive tool among several, with specific properties that determine how it operates and what it can and cannot do.

What it cannot do, by the available peer-reviewed evidence, is reliably tell us who is trustworthy and who is not.