Greg,
Its a little scary, but I actually understood your theory. I believe its substantially correct. Two points:
David D summed up my approach as succintly as possible: Start with math, finish with intuition. It gives the best of both worlds.
I agree all can't articulate well, and some of my straight ahead, rock and roll posts here, or on cybergolf.com are an attempt to articulate the difficult to articulate concepts in as simple a language as possible. My thoughts will never require you to purchase an English to Golf Course Architect translation book!
That said, I don't know if there is the implied correlation that if you can articulate, you can't design. If there is, I'm really screwed!
I think the impression of articulate vs artistic (and the idea that they can't co-exist) is still more of a romantic notion than actual fact on the design process.
The reason is that, like the spider, having a set of rules that almost always work in most known environmental conditions is not the same as having 18 template holes forced on to the landscape, which is what I think people imagine.
If you think of golf course design rules not as being set in stone (no par three opening hole, for example) but more as being like those old botany plant keys, where you ID the biggest factor first (opposite or altnerate leaves for example) which narrows the choice from twenty to ten trees, and then another factor, and then another, until the answer is obvious, I think this concept becomes clear.
Prefernces are based on experience as a starting point (like the spider) but adapted to each new site via the same process. Using the exact same design process is, IMHO, actually MORE likely to result in creating different courses on different sites than using intuition.
The reason is, our intuition is also repetitive, absent any real reason to change, i.e., we brush our teeth before shaving out of habit, and we put bunkers in certain eye appealing arrangements repeatedly, because that pattern appeals to OUR eye, which may or may not actually be the best design solution for that particular hole, client, moment in time, etc.
I believe it is NOT A COINCIDENCE that the increased number of GD Best New Placement/Awards, etc. my courses have gotten in the last five years is precisely because I have adopted the "approach driven process" based on at least some preconcieved ideas, providing I can find good places to put them or know enough to discard them. The key is, I am flexible enough (mentally, physically, I need yoga.....
) to recognize the limitations of that approach, and know when to possibly vary the rules. In fact, its easy if one of the rules is to consciously vary the rules!
Anyway, more power to anyone who can design consistently well using pure intuition. However, they need to know what the limitations of a purely intuitive approach are, because there are some. And, as you say, I think previous experiences rattle around each designers head, whether they choose to label them intuition, or known examples through study.
By the way, I have asked a number of pros about the preferred side of the fw. Like your guy, they say basically that they "intuitively" know that the risk of going in the rough is greater than the risk involved in flying a bunker from the fw. After all, in a fw lie, they can overclub and hit more spin to bring the ball back to the pin as an alternate way to take the bunker out of play.
The biggest lie on gca (next to "Ran, my 2008 contribution is on the way!) is that notion of wide fw and frontal openings being the key to a rebirth of golf design. If process driven, designing for how things are and will be provides better solutions than designing for what was and what you hope to be again. Its called nostalgia, and very few places allow it to rule like it does here!