I'll try to help out this thread a bit by getting back to Kyle's argument, which I think is this:
"Golf, in part because of its conformist nature exhibited by things like dress codes, inhibits people from joining the game, and perhaps even non-conformists who would make the game better and more enjoyable, including potential course designers."
I think that's a reach.
I think what inhibits more people from joining golf is what I might call a sort of recreational value judgement -- it's a fairly expensive endeavor that takes a long time to do. At its cheapest (for sake of argument, let's call it $25 for 18 holes), it's roughly three times the cost of a movie and takes twice as long. Oh sure, there are ancilliary benefits -- hanging with your buddies, getting in some valuable exercise (if you walk), being one with nature -- but one can do those in ways cheaper and more conveniently than playing 18 holes of golf. It's also something that can potentially be (Shivas' Kingdom-esque don't-care-about-scores aside) a frustrating endeavor, in that most people have to do it regularly in order to maintain a certain proficiency at it. That's unlike, say, bicycle riding, where I can go a year without riding a bike, and still do it ably and enjoyably after a year's time. I can't say the same about my golf game. Thus it tends to weed out quickly the occasional dabbler, who reasonably concludes after shanking a bunch of shots -- "I'm no good at this" -- and goes off to find something else to do that's more enjoyable and a better value for his time and money.