Bridging the gap - are STEM and 'People' really so different?

One of my audacious professional goals is to help bridge the gap between two previously very distinct worlds: STEM and 'People'.

And, maybe, just maybe, together we can bring these two silos much closer together?

From outside, STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) is focused on science, numbers, data, analysis and the pursuit of precision. A lot is 'hard' skill-based. In my professions, there is also significant importance placed on 'judgement', after analysing and synthesising the data though i.e. there is space for intuition honed from experience, provided it is evidence-based.

People disciplines are far more 'soft' skill-focused, with adaptability and gut-feel highly prized. There are often no checklists, or step-by-step manuals, and 'best practice' tends to be more anecdotal. Being able to:

• respond to the group or specific situation as it evolves,
  
• manage change as we proceed, and
  
• foster human creativity and expression,

are valued.

There's even debate about whether social sciences (like psychology) are part of STEM. People Analytics is one (emerging) discipline that sits in the space between - thank you to its experts who share their knowledge with me to help me understand more about how things are evolving. Also, some People topics (like psychometrics) have long involved STEM elements like statistical validity.

But, why are STEM and 'People' still so far apart? Is it: 

• a backlash against Taylor's Scientific Management? 
  
• because very different types of individuals are attracted to each discipline, with alternative emphasis on what's important? 
  
• our human nature to want to be different/special, defy neat classification, and act depending on how we feel or who we are with? 
  
• our overconfidence that we're especially good at harder-to-measure skills, like leadership, communication, influencing and more?
  
• something else?

Any suggestions to shed more light on this? 💡