Do you have any evidence for that? (You didn't provide any.) Or any argument, either?

Here is an argument against: in STEM, the path to success invariably requires a great deal of careful thinking. Bridges don't care about your privilege. Antibody binding affinity isn't dependent on political ideology. The yield of a chemical reaction isn't affected by your identity group.

Almost all the social maneuvers you can engage in the humanities to avoid thinking--personal favoritism, tribal allegiance, appeal to emotion (n.b. does not work well in philosophy, works great everywhere else), and so on--are greatly blunted or pointless in STEM.

Therefore, you would predict that people in STEM would generally have the superior training in how to think (with the possible exception of philosophers, but only philosophers).

STEM is dreadfully dangerous to religious conservatives because it resoundingly discredits various fables they're fond of. But STEM is so useful they have to endorse it anyway, even though it pains them.