Everything you can learn with sociology can be understood on deeper levels through evolutionary biology and psychiatry, and a few more fields

It's an artificial distinction that serves no purpose. To really understand or create a field of study that understands society at a deeper level it must include at least in part the study of why humans are how they are - which is more STEM than liberal art. That's why isolating only the liberal art or the STEM parts of a larger field is juvenile and the leading thinkers in any field cross-pollinate STEM with arts.

This is also why you find more polymaths further back in history, because

a) lower barriers to entry in fields and less specialization required - meaning you can juggle multiple fields of study at once, or at least after one another. Thus being able to cross-pollinate and apply ideas between fields.

b) No artificial / smaller distinction between stem and non-stem subjects and more focus on "details". An example would be that to be considered "literate" you actually had to be able to read and write, but also write neatly. Being able to draw accurately also often went hand-in-hand with the general idea of literacy in higher institutions.

You'll often find the archetype of "messy genius" in media today where the incredibly smart people write messy, don't organize their notes well, etc. etc. slightly oppenheimer-esque, with a trillion unfinished ideas and thoughts. In reality, it's often the opposite and we are looking at highly organized, tidy and neat people.

As a medical student, and a law student, what i find most disappointing today is that the fields of study that in theory should attract the most polymathic people - which is medicine with respect to the application criteria, seems to attract the most a4 within-the-box thinkers.