The thing that most stands out to me, as a theme through the interview, is just how undefined a lot of the concepts of golf course architecture really are.
For instance, when he's talking about the "schools" of golf course design, his short description of "strategic" architecture largely lines up with mine. But he describes the "penal" school in the context of how punishing a hazard might be, referencing pot bunkers on links courses. Which isn't WRONG as I understand it - when your ball is lying in a hazard, you'll find that some lies and hazards are more penal than others. But I've always understood the penal SCHOOL to be more focused on hazard placement than the toll the hazard extracts from the player who hits it. I think of the Road Hole bunker as an adopted concept of the "strategic" school in placement, but certainly a penalizing hazard from which to recover. And then he talks "heroic" architecture, not in the context of architecture, but in the context of a player attempting a heroic shot. I don't think of the 18th at Pebble as reflecting the "heroic" school. I think of it, really, as being more reflective of the "penal" school - the central challenge of that hole for most of us is to keep the ball in play, and there's not really an inherently heroic shot on it, nor is there particular value to be gained from challenging a hazard to set up a shot from a strategically advantageous position. And yet, even though it's a hole that might reflect the "penal" school, the hazards aren't particularly penal in the sense that they aren't generally horrifying to recover from.
So I could suggest that RTJII doesn't really understand the "schools" of architecture, but that's ridiculous. If a guy has a 280 course portfolio and doesn't define the schools of architecture the same way I do as a dude who likes good golf courses, I think that's more reflective of the immaturity of golf course architectural theory than it is reflective of whether or not Jones knows his shit.
And to Ira's point, I have similar thoughts when he talks about the ideas of the "Golden Age" and "Dark Ages" and these architectural eras. It seems to me that a lot of those terms have been popularized through this site and Ran's writings, but it's all pretty subjective. And yet, plenty of aficionados take those terms as gospel. And it's not hard to understand how irritating it must be to be RTJII, have those 280 courses in your portfolio, and a few hundred more in your father's, and to have much of that portfolio dismissed outright by countless masses on golf Instagram who have read over and over that those courses reflect "Dark Age" principles and now echo that same perspective as though it's factual.