It is important to note that although these layers are depicted concentrically, they are generally but not always concentrically inclusive. For example, some individuals feel empathy toward many species but not their own (as characterised by misanthropy). Others are capable of feeling empathy toward their nation, but not their own family. Still others can feel empathy toward their kin, their demographic, but not themselves (a characteristic of masochistic personality disorder). So if you were to use this diagram as a tool for mapping the general empathic capacity of an individual, it would make more sense to illustrate the capacity as a shape rather than specifically as a circle centred on the self.
An observable lack of self-empathy (through self-destructive behaviours) may be an indicator of severe psychosis.
Self-empathy, however, is not sufficient for an individual to function as part of society, a community, or within a family unit. The empathic boundary must be cast wider for the individual to act in the interests of others.
Kin and familial empathy
While necessary for an individual to function as part of a family unit, kin and familial empathy are not sufficient to enable an individual to function constructively in society.
The best measure of determining an individual's "demographic", however, is to simply ask "how well do others match this person's identity?"
Demographic empathy can be ascertained by determining to what extent the individual feels empathically to others based on that matching. If they can only feel empathic toward someone who they perceive to be 99% alike to their identity, or higher, they have low demographic empathy. If they feel empathic to someone who they perceive to be 25% or more alike to their identity, they have a high demographic empathy.
But demographic empathy really only has merit as a means for gauging general empathy. It is insufficient for an individual to function in a society -- unless that society were a hypothetical one consisting of tightly conformist personae.
Cultural and national empathy
Nations, while an arbitrary concept as far as empathy is concerned, serve to provide highly accurate cultural divisions, providing a finite boundary in which to evaluate cultural empathy. Nations can be loosely grouped as a "sub-type" of society, however the only real society in the current era is the global one. They are the halfway mark between tribe and species.
Whilst nations and cultures are not the same thing, combining them provides a straightforward measure for this important level of basic empathy.
An individual's cultural/national empathy can be understood by examining their views of the prosperity of their nation and their identification with their culture. Does the individual exhibit behaviour that promotes the prosperity of others within their nation? Does they share, propagate, and contribute toward cultural values?
A healthy cultural/national empathy will allow an individual to exist constructively within a local sub-society. But it is insufficient to contribute to the betterment of the world: how many individuals in history have loved their country, and yet viewed other, equal cultures and nations as resources to be exploited or destroyed? A strong cultural/national empathy without a broader empathic capacity perpetuates war and conflict.
Empathy to species is simply an individual's capability to understand the viewpoints, needs, desires, and motivations of others. This capability enables mutually beneficial subsistence with others, and offers mutual protection from conflicts arising from empathy disorders that are limited to ones own culture/nation, demographic, kin/family, or the self alone.
Universal material empathy
Universal material empathy is offered here as an end-cap to the empathic spectrum by the author, who would consider it indistinguishable from nihilism.
But my imagination has a limit. Perhaps the scale of empathy keeps going.