Sometimes a new and productive insight is fully understood almost immediately, sometimes it takes years and for the rare times it takes decades to arrive at a more settled understanding of what is in front of the innovator as much as the reader or observer.

A number of documentaries, some admittedly old, surfaced on Netflix on the subject of the Mandelbrot set and how mathematicians view it in context of nature. They seemed excited for what is a linear type of kaleidoscope and had trouble trying to find natural phenomena to coincide with the geometry, up to and including a cloud's design.

It was all very strained and doesn't really go anywhere because the perceptive faculties (formerly called 'intuitive') are generally lacking in that community, therefore any amount of explaining is painful for them and that has been my experience in this newsgroup for the number of decades I have posted.

I do not think the condition is terminal, however, the mathematician Pascal had both qualities which are now derided-

" We must see the matter at once, at one glance, and not by a process of reasoning, at least to a certain degree. And thus it is rare that mathematicians are intuitive, and that men of intuition are mathematicians, because mathematicians wish to treat matters of intuition mathematically, and make themselves ridiculous, wishing to begin with definitions and then with axioms, which is not the way to proceed in this kind of reasoning. Not that the mind does not do so, but it does it tacitly, naturally, and without technical rules; for the expression of it is beyond all men, and only a few can feel it. " Pascal

https://www.bartleby.com/48/1/1.html

After 30 years, there is no reason to be protective of mathematics that are both very old and quite new yet are beyond those who imagine fractals are at the heart of nature. They are not.