The problem is deciding what is actually a problem, and once it’s been decided, which one solution out of many possible ones we’re actually going to pick.

I find that often once both sides have decided that there is a problem and it should be solved but start arguing about mutually exclusive solutions to that issue, one of the sides (and it does switch) is focusing on addressing the output of the problem and the other is focusing on addressing the cause of the problem!

"Ow, my foot hurts!"

Side A: "let's give you some painkillers to stop the pain" Side B: "forget about the painkillers, stop standing on their feet!" Side A: "I've already stood on their foot, there's nothing I can do to undo it. Do you want me to rewind time or something? Why don't you care about treating their pain‽" Side B: "If you keep standing on their feet they're going to stay in pain no matter what!" Side A: "how can I get this person painkillers for their pain without standing here? Why are you so blind to this person's suffering‽"

Etc etc forever while we achieve nothing and let everything turn to rust and ashes to the backdrop of everyone silently screaming inside of their heads.

Not sure I agree that an engineering mindset wouldn't be an improvement on that tbh. There really aren't normally multiple equally valid solutions to big problems. Just people with a more or less complete understanding of the issue arguing that their understanding and subsequent solution is the best rather that just fucking listening and thinking competently to arrive at the right answers together.