The way I've always judged good versus bad is whether or not a person avoids hierarchy.
Analytic propositions are independent. They don't depend on anything, and they don't make anything depend on them.
Synthetic propositions are dependent. They depend on analysis, and socially speaking, they can make analysis depend on them.
In other words, an analyst is someone who doesn't step on someone else's boundaries.
A synthesizer is someone who does, but synthesizers usually win social games because they bring analysts together.
In effect, a synthetic society becomes an addiction. Analysts can't interact without going through synthesizers, and over time, analysts will forget how to interact altogether, depending on synthesizers to get along.
The one argument I've ever seen advocating legitimately for synthesizers is analysts are boring. Analysts get stuck on foundations, and they don't know how to elevate society to greater levels of excitement, so synthesizers are needed for this...
...but the problem here is it assumes analysts want greater levels of excitement, and each analyst didn't necessarily create each synthesizer, so there's no necessary responsibility to be entertained.
Are analysts good and synthesizers bad, or is it the other way around?