It's insane to me that Sapiens seems to make up the entirety of many engineers' humanitarian education. And not only that, that you're basically shamed if you haven't read it, but on the other hand seen as overambitious and/or not interested enough in tech if you've opted to read a more traditionally accepted scholarly tome instead.
You shouldn't be getting downvoted. Sapiens is pretty mainstream anthropology repackaged in a well written narrative. It's everything that pop intellectualism aspires to be. Sapiens also frames a ton of issues in a way that doesn't assault the STEM ego, so that certainly helped its reception. Most engineers have an atrocious understanding of the humanities, but it's hard to blame them. Most people in the humanities are woefully undereducated in regards to science.
Being steeped in one field it's easy to believe you've got it all figured out. Engineers, of which I am one, are notoriously bad about speaking with confidence from a position of ignorance, but all of us do it.
> Sapiens also frames a ton of issues in a way that doesn't assault the STEM ego, so that certainly helped its reception.
Can you describe that framing and how it "doesn't assault the STEM ego?" I haven't read the book, but I'm genuinely curious about sociological observations like this.
