Typically it would escalate into an impassioned argument between a thoughtful, logical view and an emotional, political view. I remember these ending usually with some intense feeling of accomplishment and pride, reason having vanquished emotion, or at least understanding the many facets of a different view. Sometimes the emotional voice won, smirking as it helped the reasoning side tie itself into a knot of contradictions. Committees design camels, meetings waste a lot of time, others don't see things in the same light, and it's hard to help them value what you know if they haven't fought the same demons. My engineering education reinforces these feelings - give me the requirements and the handbooks and creating a solution is a pretty efficient solitary process.
Different engineers do, however, come up with different designs.
Maybe some have better handbooks than others, or maybe they have better conversations with themselves - somehow some are more innovative than others. When you consider the innovation factor engineering isn't so straight forward after all. This is true for all knowledge work, not just engineering. Any group of professionals has its pecking order. When your ability to solve a problem or explain an effect or respond to a situation is based on the knowledge you have, more knowledge generates more value.