Theoretical fields like mathematics inherently suffer from a form of Goodhart's Law. The progress in mathematics you hear of is almost never the kind of progress non-mathematicians would care about.

It's always easier to measure progress according to the internal metrics of the field than to evaluate the contributions to the wider understanding of the topic. In theoretical computer science (which I'm most familiar with), people have long complained about results focusing on shaving sublogarithmic factors from complexity bounds (while making the algorithm worse in practice) and about reviewers being impressed by the technical difficulty of proofs. But progress like that is easier to measure than new algorithmic ideas or conceptual understanding.

But it's not all bad. The researchers chasing the metrics are almost always genuinely interested in the topics they study. Their actual contributions mostly come from the ideas they explore while trying to achieve measurable progress. And because they are not expected to produce anything of direct value (Goodhart's Law for applied researchers), they can explore a wider range of ideas.

I personally noticed this when I moved from theoretical computer science to algorithmic bioinformatics. When I start a new project, the expectation is that researchers in genomics should be using sofware that uses the new algorithms five year from now. That expectation is useful, but it's also a strict constraint on what I can afford to try.