I don't understand why this is the top comment. First of all you have this ridiculous straw man: > Shaming STEM folks for their mistakes, and claiming the hum

I don't understand why this is the top comment. First of all you have this ridiculous straw man: > Shaming STEM folks for their mistakes, and claiming the humanities is the cure-all. This is so not the article is saying. It basically says that the future world leaders will be among computer science folks, and we need more people to get into STEM, but we should also feed them with some humanities education as well. Those are completely different things. There is no shaming nor fanatical claims. They just want STEM graduates to have more holistic point of views. > She displayed no ability to teach the scientists much, ... You can't attack the premise of the article by sharing a single anecdote from your past which only shows the inability of the person in question of defending her arguments properly in that day and location. You can't generalize that and use it to attack the worth of humanities. It is ridiculous. > Technical and scientific crowds understand problems, and will jump on real solutions. Not so easy. A "problem" is not always a purely technical thing. Most of the time a problem needs to be analyzed from a humanities perspective as well as a pure technical perspective before jumping to the solving part. For instance: - What if the problem is not worth solving? - What if the "real" solution is malevolent? - What if the problem is not really a problem? - What if the human factors regarding the problem somehow necessiate alternative solutions than the most obvious, efficient, or "real" one? ... In the end, I found your comments to be too defensive. Nobody is attacking STEM people. Take it easy. Closing question: Is it a coincidence that we are heading to a technological dystopia and it is being implemented by the best engineers in the world? What is missing?