Yeah, because groups are made of humans and humans, all humans, are known for making bad decisions. But, you can't forget that even the best process can still end in results that we don't want because we're not psychic.

But, there's a difference between making a bad decision and making a decision badly, and both happen all the time. And, the reality is that more often than not we don't recognize when either situation is occurring cause wonderful old Dunninng-Kreuger. But, we look back and can point and where it went wrong and think that we should have known better or "they" should have, but that is as much a bias as Dunning-Kreuger Effect, called the Hindsight bias.

The reality, to steal from Churchill, is that human decision-making is the worst way to make decisions except for all of the other ways we've tried, and "realistically" no one is any better than anyone else. Just because you disagree with someone doesn't mean that you wouldn't have gotten to the same place with a decision as someone else with the information they had.

No amount of smarts, information, knowledge, or whatever, is going to make our cognitive biases disappear, they are part of how our brains work. We can try to reduce their impacts, but we can never eliminate them, anyone who thinks otherwise is kidding themselves. But, hey, this could just be my biases raising their heads and wreaking havoc with my reasoning, but at least I have the intellectual honesty to acknowledge that fact about myself. How many proponents of epistocracy can make that claim, I wonder?