Mark Fine brings up the "I didn't drive all this way to lay up" classic example of CP 16. So, yes, where you are playing does change the context for most of us.
I was really thinking of a decent(A or B) club player who plays his own course 20-30 times per year. I would bet in most cases, he/she is at least subconsciously trying to score their personal best for the year or career most days, knowing they will come back again, and try to shoot one stroke lower next time.
One problem with my postulation is golfers are all a bit differently abled, playing different courses for different reasons, in different seasons, etc. I have to admit, there really isn't any one size fits all answer, but still believe that for scoring, all these modern stats are for the better over some nostalgic way of thinking that may not really work for most of us. And yeah, even if that means we realize playing conservatively really makes more sense.
That said, for the designers here, the question becomes just how to create reasonable temptation, how often, what holes, what hole types, etc. And, I think it turns out that stats more or less defend those designers who try to design to favor shot patterns/types over the simplistic location, location, location implied in many treatises on strategy. As I have said before, no concept is so good it should be repeated 14 times off the tee, a few so bad it shouldn't be used even once.
A variety of tee shots, to location, via carry, flank, double flank, center, pinch, distance limiting hazards is great, and better if mixed in with a few where you can bomb it to a big area, maybe a few very narrow for accuracy demands, and most with designed in strong indications that a fade, draw, shot into a cross slope, etc. that call for a shot even if that is just your best method to get to the center (or any part of) the. As always, JMHO.