Comment by TeMPOraL

> I don’t see, for example, this sort of venom directed at sports, even though I have heard more anecdotes about the dread of PE classes.

PE is hard for those who're not fit and/or don't particularly like sports. But PE classes don't carry the air of intellectual superiority and don't hold the banner of truth the way humanities classes do. Also, people like me who dislike all kinds of physical sports know enough about human society to keep their mouths shut on the topic.

> I could also make the same sort of claim about science and math: namely that school did little to inspire any sense of wonder and appreciation for the subject

Observe the general disdain for maths and STEM among the general population.

> To not extend this sort of benefit of the doubt to the humanities them seems baffling.

It's not about rote learning, it's about truthiness. Getting burned by a math class leaves you with a perception that math is hard and probably useless. Getting burned by a literary analysis class leaves you with perception that the field is arbitrary and bullshit.

Note that I wasn't bad at literature classes at school. As long as I at least skimmed the work we were talking about, I could think on my feet fast enough to bullshit my way to B whenever asked. But I was acutely aware that I was bullshitting, and that so was the interpretation the teacher was reciting. This wouldn't be a problem as long as we both acknowledged we were spinning up interpretations, but became a problem once an interpretation became "the truth" (and one we'd be tested on).

As for humanities in general - and I tend to classify most psychology and social sciences under it - I thought a lot about it, and traced my own mixed feelings to them being essentially a hatred for bullshit. I enjoy the works of art, I enjoy introspection, I enjoy spinning up countless theories and interpretations - but I hate when someone takes what is an arbitrary interpretation and tries to pass it as fact about the real world.