Are You Born An Empath? Or Do You Become One? Part 1

An Honest Look at a Controversial Question

During my recent travels, I talked to people from different cultures, and discovered that although empathy is a well-recognised concept in many cultures, “being an empath” is not.

I started thinking: So is being an empath actually a thing? Like, a real, scientifically valid thing? Or is it just pop psychology dressed up in spiritual language, sold to us through Instagram infographics and $29.99 courses on “Unlocking Your Empathic Superpowers”?

The question of whether empaths are born or made touches on everything from genetics to childhood trauma, cultural identity, and the multi-million dollar self-help industry. So buckle up, because we’re about to dive into all of it—the science, the scepticism, and yes, even the darkness.

The Great Nature vs. Nurture Smackdown

Let’s start with the big question: Are empaths born with their abilities, or do they develop them through life experience?

The frustrating-but-honest answer is: probably both, but we’re not entirely sure. Which leads to the question: what actually is an empath?

Here’s the thing that makes this debate so contentious: “empath” isn’t actually a clinical diagnosis. You won’t find it in the DSM-5 sitting next to anxiety disorders and depression. Researchers have discovered specialised brain cells called mirror neurons that enable people to mirror emotions and share another person’s pain, fear, or joy, and empaths are thought to have hyper-responsive mirror neurons. But “empath” as a distinct category?

Research has found that about 10 per cent of variation in empathy is due to genetic factors. That’s… not nothing, but it’s not a lot. It means your genes matter, but they’re hardly writing your whole empathic autobiography. There is a gene called the OXTR Gene (Oxytocin Receptor gene) that is associated with empathy, and researchers have seen differences in brain regions associated with emotional processing, with more activity in empaths than non-empaths.

Also, it seems that emotional empathy is between 52-57 per cent heritable, whereas cognitive empathy is less determined by genetics—about 27 per cent heritable, presumably influenced more by environment and learning experiences. So your ability to feel what others feel might be more hardwired, while your ability to understand what they’re thinking is more learned.

Some researchers suggest that the matching mechanism at the root of empathy is actually assembled by associative learning—meaning empathy is not in our genes but developed through social interaction. This challenges the whole “born this way” narrative.

While we are born hardwired with the capacity for empathy, the development of its functional components requires experience and social interactions. We are born with the hardware but need to download the software through lived experience.

Empathy clearly has biological components—those mirror neurons, that oxytocin receptor gene, the way our brains light up on fMRI scans when we witness someone else’s pain. But it’s also clearly shaped by experience and culture.

The Pseudoscience Problem (Or: When Self-Help Meets Science)

A lot of scientists are seriously sceptical about the term “empath.”

Why? Because it often gets used interchangeably with concepts that are either well-established (high empathy, high sensitivity) or completely unverified (the ability to literally absorb others’ emotional energy, intuiting things about strangers without any sensory input). The English word empathy only entered the lexicon in 1909, translated from German, and there continues to be little agreement about how to define and study empathy given its intellectual history rooted in philosophy rather than empirical research (see below).

The term “empath” has its origins in metaphysical and spiritual communities, not in peer-reviewed psychological research. That doesn’t automatically make it invalid—plenty of folk wisdom turns out to be true—but it does mean we should approach extraordinary claims with healthy scepticism.

Think about it this way: If I tell you I’m highly empathetic and score high on validated empathy measures, that’s one thing. If I tell you I’m an empath who can psychically sense the emotional state of strangers from across a crowded room, that’s… significantly less scientifically supported.

The pop psychology version of empaths—complete with cosmic energy absorption and spiritual gifts—tends to blur the line between documented phenomena (emotional contagion, high sensitivity, strong mirror neuron responses) and more mystical claims. Research has shown that many people pick up the emotions of those around them through emotional contagion, such as one crying infant setting off a wave of crying in a hospital ward, or one person’s anxiety spreading to others.

But just because the spiritual framing might be unscientific doesn’t mean the underlying experience isn’t real. Many people who identify as empaths are describing something genuine—a heightened sensitivity to emotional cues, a tendency to absorb others’ moods, a deep capacity for understanding. The question is whether that represents a distinct neurological profile or simply the upper end of the normal empathy spectrum.

Honestly? We don’t know yet. The research is ongoing. In the meantime, the “empath” identity exists in this fascinating liminal space between science and spirituality, validated experience and marketing copy.

The Cultural Construction Problem: Is “Empath” Just a Western Thing?

Coming back to my experience talking to people from other cultures, I wondered if “empath” as an identity category is primarily a Western, individualistic cultural construct?

Researchers describe the individualist Western construct of empathy as deriving from high-income countries and challenge its adequacy in intercultural collectivist settings, where it often lacks empathic accuracy and can provoke empathic dissonance.

The way empathy is conceptualised, measured, and valued varies dramatically across cultures. Where empathy was rapidly identified with an individual’s inner state in Western culture, other cultures have used concepts that describe a state of immersive engagement with those around them—what has become known as social, distributed, collective, or relational empathy, which describes an action rather than a state.

Western psychology tends to treat empathy as an individual trait—something you have more or less of. But many non-Western cultures conceptualise empathy as something that happens between people, in a relationship and social context.

Research shows that people raised in collectivist societies reported feeling more empathy for their in-group members compared to those raised in individualist societies, and regardless of nationality, emotional (affective) empathy was reported to be higher than cognitive empathy.

So when someone in Los Angeles says “I’m an empath,” they’re making a very specific kind of claim about their individual identity and inner experience. But in many other cultural contexts, that way of framing sensitivity to others’ emotions wouldn’t even make sense. It would be like saying “I’m a breather” or “I’m a speaker of my native language”—of course you are, because you’re a person embedded in a web of social relationships.

Sex differences in empathy show up across cultures and are larger in more gender-equal nations, suggesting they’re not just products of culture or rigid sex roles but are an integral part of human nature, with women naturally more empathetic than men on average.

And speaking of gender: Let’s talk about the elephant in the room. Most people who identify as empaths are women. Is that because women are naturally more empathic? Or because empathy is a gendered expectation that women are socialised into from birth?

Research shows sex differences are small to moderate, somewhat inconsistent, and often influenced by the person’s motivations or social environment. Gender stereotypes about men and women can affect how they express emotions, and some suggest that women may amplify certain emotional expressions, or men may suppress them.

The “empath” identity might be a way that predominantly women are making sense of behaviour that society has always expected from them—emotional labour, intuiting others’ needs, managing relationships. It’s taking something that’s been invisible and undervalued and giving it a name, an identity, even a sense of uniqueness.

So does celebrating the “empath” identity reinforce gender stereotypes about women being naturally more emotional and nurturing? Does it risk keeping women in caretaking roles while men get to opt out of emotional intelligence?

The Dark Side: When Empathy Becomes a Tool for Evil

During the conversations I had while travelling, I was also firmly reminded that not all empathic people are good people.

Enter the “dark empath”—possibly one of the most unsettling personality profiles you’ll ever encounter.

Dark empaths possess high emotional intelligence and can understand your emotions, but they don’t have compassionate empathy. Instead, they use cognitive empathy, which allows them to rationally understand another person’s thoughts and perspective, and might use this understanding to manipulate you without feeling remorse or consequence.

Let that sink in for a moment. These are people who can read you like a book—who understand exactly what you’re feeling and why—but who use that information to manipulate, control, or harm you.

Research found a group combining dark personality traits with empathy, who scored high on both empathy measures and dark personality traits, including narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. While they weren’t as aggressive as the traditional dark triad group, they were more aggressive than typical people, particularly in indirect aggression—hurting or manipulating people through social exclusion, malicious humour, and guilt-induction.

Dark empaths are particularly dangerous because their empathy makes their manipulation harder to detect. Unlike traditional narcissists who may be oblivious to others’ feelings, dark empaths see those feelings clearly—they simply don’t care about others’ well-being.

This completely upends the narrative that empathy automatically makes you a better person. Empathy can be channelled into prosocial and antisocial behaviours, and emotional competence can be directed antisocially with manipulative intent.

Think about con artists, master manipulators, certain types of narcissists—they’re often incredibly empathic. They have to be, to pull off what they do. They understand your vulnerabilities, your hopes, your fears, and they exploit them with surgical precision.

The existence of dark empaths should make us reconsider the whole “empaths are special, gentle souls” narrative. Empathy is a tool. Like any tool, it can be used to build or to destroy. Being an empath doesn’t automatically make you kind, ethical, or safe to be around—and assuming it does can leave you vulnerable to exactly the kind of people who’ve weaponised their understanding of human emotion.

The Commercialisation Machine: The Flourishing Empath Industry

The “empath” identity has spawned an entire industry. There are books—hundreds of them. “The Empath’s Survival Guide,” “Empath: A Complete Guide for Developing Your Gift,” “Thriving as an Empath,” and on and on. There are courses, coaching programs, YouTube channels, Instagram accounts, podcasts, merchandise, crystals specifically for empaths, essential oil blends for empaths, and guided meditations for empaths.

Being an empath has become a brand.

I’m not saying all of this is worthless. Some of these resources genuinely help people. Some of the books contain solid, evidence-based advice about emotional regulation, boundary-setting, and self-care. Some of the courses teach legitimate skills.

But we need to be honest about what’s happening here: A human experience (high empathy and sensitivity) has been packaged, marketed, and sold back to people as a special identity that requires special products and special training.

The empath industry thrives on making people feel simultaneously special (“You have a gift!”) and broken (“You need help managing it!”). It positions empaths as distinct from “normal” people, requiring specialised knowledge that, conveniently, someone is selling.

This commercialisation can actually be harmful. It can prevent people from recognising that they don’t need a $297 course on “Protecting Your Empathic Energy”—they might just need therapy to process trauma and learn boundaries. They don’t need special empath crystals—they might need to limit contact with emotionally draining people.

The empath identity, when commercialised, can become another form of spiritual bypass—a way of avoiding the hard work of healing and growth by instead embracing an identity that explains away your struggles as the inevitable price of your gifts.

It seems to me that the “empath industry” is part of the larger self-help industrial complex that profits from keeping people in a state of perpetual self-improvement, always one course or book or product away from finally feeling okay.

So… Are Empaths Born or Do You Become An Empath?

After all this, we’re back to the original question. And the answer is: Yes.

Empaths—or more accurately, people with high empathy and emotional sensitivity—are both born and made. They likely have genetic and neurological predispositions that make them more reactive to emotional stimuli. But those predispositions are then shaped, amplified, or channelled by life experience, cultural context, trauma history, and learning.

Some people are probably naturally more sensitive. Some people develop heightened empathy through early experiences. Some people learn it. Some people’s “empathy” is actually hypervigilance from trauma. Some people’s empathy is cognitive—they understand emotions without necessarily feeling them deeply. Some people feel emotions intensely but struggle to understand them intellectually.

The reality is multifaceted and resistant to simple categorisation.

What This All Means for You

If you identify as an empath, here’s what I’d invite you to consider:

Get curious about the origins. Is your empathic sensitivity something that’s always been there, or did it develop in response to specific circumstances? There’s no wrong answer, but understanding the roots can help you address what needs healing versus what needs accepting.

Examine your boundaries. Are you empathising with people (understanding their experience while maintaining your own sense of self) or are you merging with people (unable to distinguish their feelings from your own)? The latter isn’t actually empathy—it’s enmeshment, and it’s treatable.

Question the narrative. Are you using “empath” as a way to understand yourself, or as a way to avoid addressing patterns that actually need to change? Is it helping you grow, or keeping you stuck?

Be sceptical of the industry. You probably don’t need a $500 course to manage your empathy. You might need therapy, you might need to learn emotional regulation skills, you might need to set better boundaries with draining people. Most of that can be addressed through evidence-based approaches that don’t require special “empath” abilities.

Reject the hierarchy. You’re not more evolved or spiritually advanced because you’re empathic. You’re no better than people with less empathy. You just have a different experience, with different challenges and different gifts.

Get the support you need. If you’re experiencing burnout, compassion fatigue, or trauma symptoms, get the help you need.

The Bottom Line

The question “Are empaths born or made?” can’t be answered simply because “empath” itself is a complex, contested, culturally-situated concept that means different things to different people.

What we do know:

• Empathy has biological components and learned components
• High sensitivity is real and can be challenging
• Trauma can create what looks like empathic sensitivity
• Empathy can be both a gift and a burden
• The commercialisation of empathy has created both helpful resources and harmful narratives
• Dark empaths exist and empathy doesn’t automatically equal goodness
• Cultural context profoundly shapes how empathy is experienced and expressed

The most radical thing you can do is hold all of this complexity. Don’t let the empath identity become a box that limits you. Don’t reject it entirely if it helps you make sense of your experience. Don’t use it as an excuse to avoid growth or healing. Don’t weaponise it as proof of your superiority.

Instead, let it be what it is: one lens among many for understanding the rich, complicated, beautiful mess of being a human.

And if you’re reading this as someone who doesn’t identify as an empath, maybe consider that the people who do are grappling with something real—even if the packaging around it sometimes veers into the questionable. They’re trying to make sense of an experience of emotional overwhelm in a world that often invalidates sensitivity and undervalues emotional labour.

Some of us feel more, some of us feel differently, some of us have learned to shut down our feelings to survive, and some of us never learned to turn down the volume.

Research

Melchers, M., et al. (2016). “How heritable is empathy? Differential effects of measurement and subcomponents.” Found that affective empathy is 52–57% heritable; cognitive empathy is approximately 27% heritable.

Abramson, L., et al. (2020). “The genetic and environmental origins of emotional and cognitive empathy: Review and meta-analyses of twin studies.” Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews (meta-analysis of 28 twin studies). Meta-analysis finding: emotional empathy ~48.3% heritable; cognitive empathy ~26.9% heritable. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2020 Jul;114:113-133. 

Davis, M.H. (1994). “The heritability of characteristics associated with dispositional empathy.” Early twin study showing heritability for affective facets of empathy (empathic concern, personal distress) but not cognitive perspective-taking. J Pers. 1994 Sep;62(3):369-91.

Rodrigues, S.M., et al. (2009). “Oxytocin receptor genetic variation relates to empathy and stress reactivity in humans.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS). Individuals homozygous for the G allele of rs53576 OXTR showed higher empathy and lower stress reactivity. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2009 Dec 15;106(50):21437-41.

Luo, S., et al. (2017). “Revisiting the impact of OXTR rs53576 on empathy: A population-based study and a meta-analysis.” Psychoneuroendocrinology. Large sample (N=1,830) + meta-analysis (N=6,631) confirming OXTR rs53576 association with empathy, particularly fantasy and emotional resonance.

Smith, K.E., et al. (2014). “Oxytocin receptor gene variation predicts empathic concern and autonomic arousal while perceiving harm to others.” Social Neuroscience 2014 Feb;9(1):1-9.

Heym, N., et al. (2021). “The Dark Empath: Characterising dark traits in the presence of empathy.” Personality and Individual Differences. First published study to formally identify and characterise the Dark Empath personality subgroup — individuals high in both dark triad traits (psychopathy, narcissism, Machiavellianism) and empathy. Personality and Individual Differences Volume 169, 1 February 2021, 110172

Heym, N., Firth, J., et al. (2019). “Empathy at the Heart of Darkness: Empathy Deficits That Bind the Dark Triad and Those That Mediate Indirect Relational Aggression.” Frontiers in Psychiatry. Found dark triad traits linked to indirect relational aggression (social exclusion, malicious humour, guilt induction) mediated by empathy deficits. Front Psychiatry. 2019 Mar 12;10:95

Christov-Moore, L., et al. (2014). “Empathy: Gender effects in brain and behaviour.” Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews. Comprehensive review finding females show higher affective empathy across evolutionary, developmental and neurobiological evidence. Sex differences appear to have biological roots beyond socialisation alone. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2014 Oct;46 Pt 4(Pt 4):604-27.

Romero, T., et al. (2025). “Male and female empathy across 24 countries and 60 latitudinal degrees.” Personality and Individual Differences. Found sex differences in empathy (perspective taking and empathic concern) were positively associated with distance from the Equator — larger in more gender-equal, individualist nations. ScienceDirect

Riess, H. (2017). “The Science of Empathy.” Journal of Patient Experience (Harvard Medical School / Massachusetts General Hospital). Classic paper establishing that empathy, once considered innate, is mutable and can be taught; includes evidence from randomised controlled trials with physicians. Sage Journals

Riess, H. (2022). “Empathy can be taught and learned with evidence-based education.” Emergency Medicine Journal. Companion piece confirming empathic communication is teachable with growing evidence-based training approaches.

Bas-Sarmiento, P., et al. (2020). “Empathy training in health sciences: A systematic review.” Nurse Education in Practice. Systematic review of 23 studies (2000–2017) on empathy training effectiveness; found humanities-based interventions had especially strong impact.

Paulhus, D.L., & Williams, K.M. (2002). “The Dark Triad of personality: Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy.” Journal of Research in Personality. The original published study defining the Dark Triad.