My take on Peter's question is that he is asking us to walk around the other side of the camera, look through the lens, and observe what's going on there. It's a question we talk to all the time as the result of architecture, in pieces. For instance, the centerline bunker forces decisions about how to play a hole, which we all agree is better than having architecture that dictates few if any rational choices on approach.
What makes Peter's question interesting is he's asking us to think about how the process of answering those questions, and having the answers validated by our play, informs our understanding of ourselves. In this sense, does having a broader array of questions to answer, and a broader set of validation points, result in a richer understanding of ourselves, either in micro, in the moment, or macro, in the larger arc of our lives?
My take would be obviously, yes, good architecture, being more stimulating, and more engaging, will provide richer depth of experience around choice, decisions, and outcomes than poorer architecture. And, for those who choose to reflect on these matters, this is good news.
In tandem he's also pointing to the often overlooked reality that we are not the same person from day to day, and we are often consciously aware of these differences. Moods change, energy levels rise and fall, we learn about ourselves, we forget what we learned. We also evolve different goals and objectives. At one time you may wish to grow your ability to be conservative, at others, to be bold.
Peter's question points to the idea that rich golf architecture provides a better stage on which to play out this inner conversation. And, that, I think, is a very very good thing.