"All just guess-work of course. But off Tom P's post: if small bunkers force the golfer to, at least intuitively, blame himself for his troubles maybe large bunkers do the exact opposite,...."
Peter:
I'm not sure if I'm interpreting correctly what you said there---but nevertheless, I'd like to make a small point.
I would not say small hazard features in a sea of fairway area intuitively force golfers to "blame" themselves---I said I think it intuitively would force golfers to "take responsibility for their actions".
Frankly, I think there can be and is a rather large difference between "blame" and "taking responsibilty for one's actions".
In the world of the philosophy of Behr the former is basically negative, it's somewhat defeating to the spirit of the golfer---while the latter can actually be uplifting and exhilerating---in a sense what Behr referred to as "an adventure of the spirit".
By that he obviously meant some architecture, perhaps even very large hazard features that are by their very size inherently hard to avoid, particularly if plentiful choices and area to get around them aren't supplied, are in a sense defeating of the golfer's "spirit".
While on the other hand, something that is smaller, albeit hazardous, in relation to what's around it that the golfer by his very own choice takes on, is exhilerating and an adventure of the spirit---even if he does not succeed and gets in it.
The point is the golfer feels he had so much more of a his OWN choice to avoid it compared to something very large, and for that reason he might feel proud of himself for simply making that adventurous choice and even attempting to defeat it.
Somewhere in this particular line of reasoning, Peter, I think lies the very heart and soul of what the likes of Behr and his fellow travelers were trying to refer to as "strategic" golf and architecture.