By "collaboratively" I mean that design decisions are made by a consensus of multiple people.
In almost any meeting, the consensus is dominated by charisma. If someone is charismatic, then his speculations are the truth. I think this stems from evolutionary pressure that makes it advantageous for people to side with "the leader", even if he is wrong.
My feeling is that group discussions are good for extracting information from people, but the group consensus always sucks. I think consensus might be good for making some simple decisions, but for anything more creative the group's opinion is swayed too much by the blabberings of charismatic douchebags.
P.S. The thing charismatic douchebags like to speculate about the most in their discussions is safety stuff, because safety stuff is impossible to disprove. The charismatic douchebag will convince the group that they shouldn't do the easy X because it's unsafe, and that they should instead do the difficult Y because it's safer. And then afterwards the charismatic douchebag looks like a hero to the group, because the group attributes the lack of bad things happening to people doing Y.
[–]IkeConn 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun - (0 children)
[–]raven9 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun - (0 children)
[–]iDontShift 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun - (0 children)
[–]fatman 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun - (0 children)