Le Chaud Lapin writes:

Then there is the E6-B. It makes a lot more sense to someone who
understands the fundamentals of what they are doing than following a
learned procedure, which is why I stopped following the "do this, then
do that" instructions, and examine the thing and thought about why it
works, what relationships exist between the scales etc.

So I regard my flight training as mostly a cerebral experience, with
the instructor filling in the parts that are not found in books.

Rote learning has the advantage of being accessible to almost anyone of
reasonably normal intelligence. Learning theory requires a higher level of
intelligence, and in some domains (quite a few, in fact), the theory is
complex enough that one must be of above-average intelligence in order to
grasp it.

Rote learning works well for dealing with situations that are covered by the
rote-learning curriculum. It can even work better than theory for certain
specific situations (for which learning all the necessary theory would be
impractical). However, knowing theory is vastly more useful when dealing with
situations that are not covered by the rote-learning curriculum.

In summary, rote learning covers most situations well and is accessible to
all, while theory covers all situations but is too difficult for some and
involves higher overhead when it comes to dealing with simple, common
situations.

Just about all practical learning (piloting, driving, cooking, etc.) is by
rote, whereas abstract subjects often involve mostly theory.