https://theconversation.com/steam-not-stem-why-scientists-need-arts-training-89788
The professor advocating for STEAM thinks the divide is greater than ever as of January of this year, contra claims about extensive interdisciplinary integration. Of course, here and elsewhere the claim is that the Humanities need to be the moral steering for technological development. Such unearned moral arrogance. So yes, this is precisely a place where the politics matters.
Moving onto the more practical issues:
"Communication" doesn't mean a problem is solved, or that all voices contribute merely through existence (TAing is fine, but what are you solving? Statistics shown by Caplan suggests undergrads have poor retention). I'm a major proponent of interdisciplinary training, and the future of medicine further integration between traditional medicine, behavioral health, and technology. But not with English professors.
Taleb's main source of derision for "intellectuals" is the lack of "skin in the game". The contributions by the humanities for some time now have been a net negative, because intellectuals have no skin in the game, if not outright perverse incentives. If humanities professors want a proverbial seat at the table outside of their area of expertise, they need to be exposed to risk for when their inputs are shit.
https://www.nature.com/articles/palcomms201636
As per this article, one problem is that the languages, methodologies, and perspectives across disciplines are often near-unintelligible outside of each discipline. Communication requires understanding. Health psychology deals with this within the medical field, and that's where there's a clear shared interest (patient health) and compatible understanding of mechanisms (altering patient behaviors). Statistics have this divide
internally, as statistics for, for example, business versus social sciences are very different.