Myers Briggs and "Enjoying the subject of golf course architecture"

[Mike_Sweeney]

On the National Thread, Michael Moore asked Tommy, "Can you explain to me how enjoying the subject of golf course architecture is the opposite of just adding courses to one's resume?"

It often seems like we have many "discussions" around this topic, but never about this topic of how to enjoy the architecture. In the business world, my wife and I have individually taken the Myers Briggs test (http://www.myersbriggs.org/), and have found that it also helps in our marriage. More precisely, she now understands why I occasionally annoy her . Thus, here is my attempt to classify the 7 different personalities of GCA. Let's call it The Myers Briggs GCA Scale.

V   The Volume Discounter - focus on number of courses played.

P   The Peg Board Guy - pegs in his Golf Digest, GW or Golf Magazine board.

T   The Top Heavy Guy – focuses on the “Top 30”, would play those over and over if given the choice.

R   The Regional Guy – sticks to his region and knows those courses, only strays outside his region for an occasional round.

W   The Walker – The true architecture fan who will simply walk a course to see it.

A   The Architect Guy – Focuses on one or a few architects.

X   The Adventurer – Is difficult to classify, as he may have a combination of many of the above.

In the Myers Briggs world, I am a INTJ, and in the GCA world, I am 50% T, 25% R, and 25% A.

Maybe after taking this test, we will all have the same type of bliss that we share here in the Sweeney household.  




"By developing individual strengths, guarding against known weaknesses, and appreciating the strengths of the other types, life will be more amusing, more interesting, and more of a daily adventure than it could possibly be if everyone were alike."

–Isabel Myers

[T_MacWood]

I'd add another one if you are attempting to describe someone like Tommy: The Scholar.

Someone who will spend hours, days, years researching a historic architect or golf course prior to visiting.

Somone who will visit and study the former site of a long gone golf course, looking for clues of what may have existed.

When you spend that much time trying to understand a subject, your 'resume' is the last thing on your mind.

[TEPaul]

MikeS:

My wife understands now why I annoy her too, even if neither of us have ever heard of the Myers Briggs test. The reason this happened is because before we got married I told her about 35 times that she should never try to change me--not even in the slightest--and that if she didn't like the way I am enough she shouldn't marry me. Of course she didn't understand that for some years but she does now. Somewhat more than infrequently she doesn't like me and I annoy her but now she understands there's not a damn thing she can do about it. The reason is I hold all the cards and she doesn't! Sometimes she still complains and says things like it's not fair and we should be equal but I simply remind her that Eve did eat that poison apple when she was warned not to, and that's a fact and there ain't one damn thing either of us can do about that at this point!  

If that's what Myer Briggs tells the testees, I'm all for him!  

[TEPaul]

""By developing individual strengths, guarding against known weaknesses, and appreciating the strengths of the other types, life will be more amusing, more interesting, and more of a daily adventure than it could possibly be if everyone were alike."

–Isabel Myers"

MikeS:

This is a quote that should be hung on the front page of GOLFCLUBATLAS.com.

There are a number of participants and contributors to this site who don't seem to understand that sentiment particularly well and surely don't practice it either. There are some participants on here who surely do have some remarkable strengths---and in the area of research, Tom MacWood, TommyN, Paul Turner, GeoffShac, Wayne Morrison and some others have it in spades.

Not all of them, but some of them should understand better,  in my opinion, that in the entire area of golf course architecture as it necessarily applies to the fact of golf itself and golfers and things like memberships of golf clubs there's a whole lot more to this entire world of golf architecture than just research. Research is very important, it's frankly necessary to essential but nevertheless there's more to all this than just that.

Failing to acknowledge that fact, fighting it, constantly criticizing it, telling others in a general sense they "don't get it" will never work---not ever, to the overall benefit of all golf architecture or even within specific clubs. The reasons are patently obvious.

Perhaps everyone on here should take the Myers Briggs test just to see what, if anything, the result would be. Isabel Myer's remark is one of the best endorements I've ever seen for what I sometimes call "The Big World Theory".

The Big World Theory is necessary, I think, it's probably undeniable anyway---it's obviously always been with us and with golf and golf architecture. The real trick in the future to me is use the Big Wolrd Theory to learn from the mistakes of the past and to come to understand that there really is so much difference out there in golf architecture and for the first time it needs to be adminiistered and maintained differently to be the best it can be.

A "one size fits all" mentality will never be good for golf course architecture in any way. I think some who were at the Hidden Creek meeting heard Bill Coore mention briefly that "standardization" in golf architecture has never been a good thing and never will be!

[Michael Moore]

Sweeney/Paul -

It is a big world. And moreover, each round is a big microcosm.
Therefore, it is possible, within one round of golf to

- try to post a low score

- try to drink in the architectural nuances of the course

- try to evaluate the course in the grand scheme of things

- reflect upon the cart girl

- take delight in the fact that you have now played a particular course and will be able to intelligently discuss it with other people or brag about it to other people, or cross it off your list, or whatever

- enjoy the company of your partners

- enjoy the scenery

- enjoy the peace and quiet of a golf course

Four hours is a long time and our brains are complex. We need not limit ourselves to one reason for going to the golf course.

[James Bennett]

TE Paul

Men marry their wives thinking that their wives will never change.  Woman marry their husbands thinking that they can change them.  Both sexes are wrong.  (I'm not sure what happens with gay couples under this arrangement).



Mike Sweeney

I have undertaken the Myers-Briggs test on several occasions over the last decade.  I am an ENTP.  It has helped me to undertsand my strengths and weaknesses.  Its a terrible thing to say, but I am 'an ideas man'!

From my understanding of Myers-Brigg's, there are 4 different lines, each comprising two extreme preferences making 8 preferences in all.  Individuals can exhibit a greater alignment to one preference versus the related preference eg extravert vs introvert.  Of course, some people may have an equal balance of these two preferences.  

There is no right or wrong answer with Myers-Briggs.  It just explains an individuals natural preference.  Could be similar to GCA here.  The 8 preferences of Myers-Briggs are
- Extravert and Introvert (Energizing, or orientation of energy)
- Sensing and Intuition (Perceiving)
- Thinking and Feeling (Deciding or Judgement)
- Judging and Perceiving (Living, or orientation to the outside world)
I suspect a number of the heady debates on GCA are partly due to different Myers-Briggs preferences.  A person with a thinking preference is objective, whilst a feeling preference is subjective - very easy for two such people to have an argument here.

In a proper Myers-Briggs GCA model, we would each have our preferences.  However, these preferences need to be paired.  Taking your examples a bit further, may I suggest (with the benefit of about 10 minutes thought) some different preferences/pairings.  They are
- Player/Walker
- Equity/Quirky (could be strokeplay/matchplay)
- Minimalist/Manufactured (amount of earth movement accepted)
- Golf/Garden (purpose of the golfing facility)

The outcome is an understanding of one's golf preferences. Most people would have some weighting on each of the 8 preferences , although some might be at the extermes of some pairings (eg, those that won't consider a Manufactured course, because it is not minimalist/natural). All of us might have a different preference here on GCA, but so would many scratch-players, many juniors and many senior golfers.  We probably just 'get' different things

Any thoughts on alternate pairings of preferences?

Please note, I am not a physcologist, I'm an extroverted numbers man!