With regards to point # 5 — if you read this article
https://medium.com/open-participatory-organized/the-power-matrix-e94f670cfc7c#.992lgo1w7

You will see that what “collaboration” is, is a specific configuration of the power matrix between people as they negotiate asymmetric needs/wants and skills/resources. One person could be absolutely neutral in their needs/wants, and yet, through psychological mechanisms such as projection, the other person would “feel coerced” if their needs/wants were high. Think of relationships, where one person, deeply smighten by another, feels “coerced” into doing things for them. … so when you get this strong asymmetry in skills between the rare individual who scores at very high levels of development, and the experts and achiever-level people whom they manage, there will be less likelihood of collaborative engagement across the power-skill divide. This creates a tension, and hence drives the tendency to create a management level “higher up” the level of abstraction.

What happens when you get an entire room of high-level people together? Well, the same dynamics repeat themselves, through the tension, negotiation, and configuration of power, and things get pretty rough before they sort themselves out. The major difference is the “banter” is high-conceptual, and the psychologcial moves are very subtle and sophisticated. If the stakes are not particularly high, it can be experienced as a form of “high play.” I believe this is the actual underlying motivation in the kinds of T-groups and We-space practices that are going around in what is/was the “integral movement.” It has the same kind of feeling that permeated Scientology, Landmark, and Avatar groups — sublte Tai-Chi-like psychoactive games, with the right amount of emotional juciness. IOW, T-group in Boulder performs the same social function as soccer in Brighton.