I think you’re misunderstanding me, because I mostly agree with you.
> There's nothing magic or even very special about the methods and models you are talking about outside their domain of use.
Learning about how cones & brains interpret light into the colors we perceive is definitely “special” compared to models designed around some particular physical medium like ink or dye or CRT displays, and the domain of use is “any time you want humans to look at colors”.
> [RGB/CMYK] is not more keyed to human physiology, in fact I'd argue that it is less intuitive and useful.
Sure. Which is why what I advocate teaching is the physiology and models aimed at approximating it (something with dimensions like the Munsell system or CIECAM02, etc.) ... which is absolutely more “intuitive” than RGB or CMYK or some paint mixing model, in the sense that it tracks perceived color attributes directly.
> There's nothing magic or even very special about the methods and models you are talking about outside their domain of use.
Learning about how cones & brains interpret light into the colors we perceive is definitely “special” compared to models designed around some particular physical medium like ink or dye or CRT displays, and the domain of use is “any time you want humans to look at colors”.
> [RGB/CMYK] is not more keyed to human physiology, in fact I'd argue that it is less intuitive and useful.
Sure. Which is why what I advocate teaching is the physiology and models aimed at approximating it (something with dimensions like the Munsell system or CIECAM02, etc.) ... which is absolutely more “intuitive” than RGB or CMYK or some paint mixing model, in the sense that it tracks perceived color attributes directly.