I would say it is a good thing. All of it - both pushing the boundaries and resisting against them.

​

I'm by no means an expert, but I did play a bit with genetic algorithms. One of the problems is making sure your population has sufficient genetic diversity. Basically you do not want most of your population to just follow the currently "best" solution. You want multiple sub-populations to give you a broad base to try to solve new problems from. Perhaps neurodivergent individuals (like people with ADD or ADHD) might just be absolutely vital to the whole population and their survival. After all, it is impossible to predict future challenges that need to be overcome in order for population to survive.

​

Looking at this in that light, having both people who want to regress and people who want to challenge the status quo is a way of making sure that we all do not jump into pool that turns out to be lava. It does make the progress slower. Much slower than it could be, but we seem to be having issues with progress being too fast. As an example, the news feed algorithms choosing the content we see creates bubbles and ultimately allows few individuals to shift the reality of a large section of the population. We no longer live in the same reality and we struggle to agree on the same set of historical facts. But, at least we recognize that as a problem, at least at some level. Whether this is a useful sub-population split is something that remains to be seen. Still, looking at it from the genetic diversity point of view makes it easier to accept all the differing points of view as valid, and useful. At least for me.