{"path":"research/catching-a-proposal-made-unnecessary/cases-negatives/BD28.md","content":"*Spoken name: good hearts, decomposed.* *About: What the founder's belief that most people have good hearts claims once its holes are granted, and how the wager counts against it.* **Most disagreements, decomposed, show shared care held with different beliefs, weights and circles of concern; the commonest error between sides is believing the other's heart is bad, and a descent that finds no shared care counts against the wager.** Each side credits its own group's aggression to love and the other's to hate (Waytz, Young and Ginges 2014, about 2,900 people in the United States, Israel and Palestine). The holes are real (people weigh different goods, goodness is often parochial, moralized attitudes resist settlement), and each is a choice or a stance the graph can hold and argue; the reading that counts a descent with no shared care is not yet built. His words behind it: *\"For the vast majority of the population, they have good hearts. They just interpret what's feasible and wise differently?\"* (2026-07-04, quoted in the convergence line), and his request: *\"Poke holes in this as well, perhaps based on Jonathan Haidt's research and such, idk. Then try to see how you can rebut all critique as you predict I would, based on what Deliberus could become.\"* The holes and his predicted answers are `good-hearts-and-permissivism.md` § 3–4; the word that did not survive is *just*. **Meets:** narrows the founding belief in `vision.md` § The Founding Wager and the convergence conviction; AN11 (open: six places two minds part) shows a stake beside the reasons, the attunement half; AU8 (open: success measured by the holders); a reading for *no shared care found* is owed by the horizon map and is unbuilt. Reverses nothing settled."}