I agree with Djerassi that the term "polymath" is confusing and detrimental. I think it's so because it describes what kind of knowledge one has, not what funct

I agree with Djerassi that the term "polymath" is confusing and detrimental. I think it's so because it describes what kind of knowledge one has, not what function that knowledge provides. 'Deep integrators' I think would be a better term, as opposed to the 'shallow integrators' that we call 'integrators' today and that know a little about a lot and excel about making lots of conspicuous connections. As opposed to a 'shallow integrator', a 'deep integrator' knows a lot about a lot and excels about having meaningful contributions in a lot of areas and making connections that are deep but mostly inconspicuous (for example, we'll never know what part of the skills acquired while learning chemistry and of the connections made between chemistry and writing made him a better writer, but I am sure this part of "inconspicuous deep connections" exists).