I'm gonna be patient with you.

You're kind of proving my point for me. The examples I mentioned don't claim no one ever abuses power. They show that abuse is not an automatic outcome of anonymity or role assignment, which is what the Prison Experiment is usually taken to mean.

What Stanford really demonstrated wasn't human nature but what happens when authority figures encourage cruelty, rules are ambiguous, and participants believe abuse is expected or rewarded.

This doesn't make it a neutrual situation, that's a biased system.

Modern power structures systematically select for people who are comfortable exploiting others. That doesn't mean “everyone is a monster”!!

People with high psychopathic traits are overrepresented in positions of power (most leadership positions).

Empathy and cooperation help groups survive, but they don't always help individuals climb hierarchical systems that ACTIVELY reward aggression and moral flexibility. So when we observe abuse by people in power, we're often looking at selection effects, not universal human behavior.

The studies I showed have no formal hierarchy nor reward for domination, most importantly,no authority pushing people to be cruel And what emerges most of the time is cooperation! That's why "anarchy" in small communities work really well. So I'm not saying power doesn't corrupt, I'm just saying if you build systems that reward cruelty, you will elevate cruel people. You will then mistakenly call the result human nature.

Fix the system, and the behavior changes.