The Complex Nature of Empathy

The common belief about empathy—that it’s inherently a good trait—has been widely accepted in fields like psychology, ethics, and education. The idea goes that an empathetic individual feels and understands others’ pain, driving them to help alleviate that suffering. This notion is appealing and, until fairly recently, largely uncontested in various scientific disciplines focused on human behavior.

However, evidence from the last two decades has started to complicate this straightforward view.

Currently, research suggests that empathy is more selective than universal; it’s something that can run out rather than an endless resource. It’s also susceptible to manipulation, which can be particularly detrimental when wielded by those with harmful intentions.

The Heym Study of 2020

A 2020 study by Nadja Heym and colleagues at Nottingham Trent University examined personality patterns in a group of 991 adults, employing a statistical method known as latent profile analysis. Participants filled out standard assessments measuring empathy and the “Dark Triad” personality traits: narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. These traits, recognized since the early 2000s, encapsulate socially problematic personalities that often manipulate and exploit others.

Previously, it was generally believed that high empathy and high levels of Dark Triad traits were mutually exclusive. However, the findings of the Heym study didn’t support this.

The researchers identified four distinct groups within their sample. The “Typicals” (about 34%) exhibited moderate empathy and low Dark Triad traits. The “Empaths” (roughly 33%) showed high empathy alongside low Dark Triad traits. Then there was the “Dark Triad” group (around 13%), which matched the expected profile of low empathy and high Dark Triad traits. Interestingly, about 19% fell into a fourth category labeled “Dark Empaths,” characterized by high empathy and high Dark Triad traits.

These Dark Empaths weren’t a pre-existing clinical category but a surprising statistical discovery. This trend has been replicated in subsequent studies across various countries.

Understanding Dark Empaths

Further analysis revealed that Dark Empaths share characteristics with both The Empaths and The Dark Triad groups, differing in critical ways. Like the Dark Triad, they demonstrated higher levels of indirect aggression—think gossiping and social exclusion. Yet, similar to The Empaths, they possessed an acute emotional understanding and accurately perceived others’ mental states.

This resulted in what researchers described as an “antagonistic core with empathy.” The empathy they exhibited was legitimate, captured by standard measurement tools. What set Dark Empaths apart was not their lack of empathy but rather how they chose to use it.

This perspective sees empathy as a cognitive tool. Yes, it can help reduce suffering, but it can also be misused for exploitation. Evidence suggests that around one in five adults may utilize their empathy more for manipulation than for kindness, all while rating highly on empathy scales.

Selectivity of Empathy

This finding coincides with a broader reevaluation of empathy that’s been developing over the last twenty years through peer-reviewed research.

A key challenge to the view of empathy as universally beneficial comes from social neuroscience, which indicates that empathy is far from universal. Studies using functional MRI have shown that the same brain regions activated by observing pain in in-group members don’t fire as actively—or at all—when observing out-group members’ pain. This has been confirmed across various categories like race, nationality, and team affiliation. Essentially, people tend to feel more empathy for those who are similar to them.

This tendency toward selective empathy not only has significant implications for moral reasoning but also highlights how an empathy-based moral system can systematically favor in-group suffering over out-group suffering. This isn’t an oversight; it seems to be an evolutionary design.

Empathy Fatigue

Another major critique of conventional thinking around empathy comes from studies on empathy fatigue. A landmark paper by Tania Singer and Olga Klimecki in 2014 analyzed the effects of long-term exposure to others’ suffering. They found that sustained empathic engagement could activate similar neural pathways in the observer’s brain as those being observed, leading to emotional distress over time.

The findings also highlighted a key distinction between empathy and compassion. While empathy involves sharing in another’s emotional state, compassion entails caring for someone else’s suffering without directly experiencing that pain yourself. This distinction involves different neural networks, suggesting that compassion may be more sustainable over time. Health care workers, for example, may maintain compassion without constantly feeling their patients’ pain.

The Bloom Perspective

One of the most notable discussions surrounding these findings is in the 2016 book Against Empathy: The Case for Rational Compassion by Yale psychologist Paul Bloom. He utilized social neuroscience and personality research to argue that empathy, as traditionally understood, is not a suitable guide for moral decisions. Bloom isn’t saying empathy is bad; rather, he’s suggesting it possesses specific characteristics and consequences—some beneficial, others not.

The trend in thinking that empathy is the core of human goodness doesn’t hold up when faced with the evidence. What does remain is a more restrained view: empathy is just one of a number of cognitive tools that influence our moral and social behavior.

This perspective has been contested by others, like Stanford’s developmental psychologist Jamil Zaki, who believes empathy can be cultivated rather than dismissed. The debate is alive in academic circles, but there’s a consensus that previous views of empathy as purely virtuous are no longer defensible based on current evidence.

Limitations in Research

It’s essential to acknowledge some limitations in the aforementioned studies.

The Dark Empath profile, while peer-reviewed, is relatively new and has not been widely replicated across diverse populations to solidify it as a strong personality category. The 19% statistic may vary across different cultures or demographics. The current findings should be regarded as hypotheses rather than solidified categories.

Most neural research on empathy and compassion is conducted in controlled settings, making direct connections to everyday experiences somewhat tenuous. While the models are broadly accepted, they aren’t the only ones out there.

Additionally, the selectivity of empathy is context-dependent. An individual may exhibit strong empathy for an out-group member in one scenario but reduced empathy under different circumstances, indicating it’s more of a cognitive bias than a fixed trait.

What This All Means

From this nuanced understanding of empathy, we can draw several important conclusions.

First off, empathy, according to current research, isn’t a foolproof moral compass. It operates selectively, can deplete, and may be employed by individuals whose interests don’t align with those they’re empathizing with. This challenges the popular view that equates empathy with moral goodness.

Second, the alternative found in the literature isn’t to abandon empathy but rather to embrace compassion as a sustainable and different mental state. Compassion only requires care for another’s welfare, without the necessity of sharing their pain. The two states yield different neural responses and practical outcomes.

Third, recognizing the existence of the Dark Empath profile—present in roughly one-fifth of adults—has real-world implications for how we navigate relationships. The notion that emotional awareness indicates safety isn’t always reliable; someone can accurately read emotions but choose to harm rather than help.

Finally, after decades of research that has shifted dramatically, it’s clear that while empathy is indeed valuable, it isn’t what many have assumed. It’s just one of several cognitive tools, with unique attributes that define its effectiveness and limitations.

What empathy can’t reliably do, according to the evidence, is discern trustworthiness.