So if the second architecture is going to be more difficult to understand and use than the first, the best course of action would be to first teach the architecture you expect the students to normally use - i.e. x86, ARM etc. Why bother with obscure architectures if it's just going to make students' life hard later? -- Was that what you're trying to say? If so, it doesn't explain the core question, i.e. why universities use obscure architectures. I'd highly recommend explaining how your answer is relevant, rather than backhandedly telling people "look it up yourself".

@R.M. The community is Academia. My presumption is that readers are well able to do their own research and draw their own conclusions. The "case study" presents some evidence leading to the observation that "The First Cut Is The Deepest" (i.e. "Familiarity Bias"). I see no need to dumb-down this answer. Teaching the concepts based on the OP's suggested "Made Up" hardware implementation ensures that students stay focussed on learning the concept, and don't get lost "in the weeds" of a particular real-world implementation their career may never include.

@R.M. (tongue-in-cheek) Why do so many cling to Pi when Tau is a MUCH more sensible circle constant? Why do Americans cling to inches, feet, yards and miles when metric measures are so much easier to manipulate? Familiarity, perhaps? Avoiding inducing in students a preference for this architecture instead of that architecture seems to me to be a laudable justification.

In regular academia the presumption is to clearly lay out your arguments so others can understand them, rather than couch them in coy insinuations. I'm not asking you to dumb down your answer. I'm just asking you to actually explicate the point you're trying to make. -- Teaching concepts and getting past architectural preferences does indeed seem a laudable justification, but it's a justification you never explicitly say. Instead of being tongue-in-cheek in comments, why don't you just clarify in your answer?

have to agree that the answer is unclear. Your justfication in the comments sounds opposite to what the answer suggests - if "real" architectures are things like x86, why learn the "invented" ones if it is harder to shift? Or do I have it backwards? We don't know, as Razvan P said, because so much is left unsaid

@Fe203 Because I can measure inches, feet, and yards accurately with my body? Thumb, Foot, Arm span.... Meter,cm etc.. don't map as well to the human body... its almost as though one of those measurements was made by using an average sized human..

@Questor (Off topic, but a reply is simply irresistible). Without meaning to diminish the importance of "first person singular", have your "Me! -centric" dimensions changed since you were, perhaps, seven years old when those foundational scales were presented to you? Why are some 12 in. rulers graduated with markings each 1/10th of an inch while others marked with 1/2, 1/4, 1/8th of an inch? I've never encountered a report from anyone seeking to tie "the standard (American) pound" to a fundamental physical constant.

@MikeM (This Q)[[stackoverflow.com/q/78248348/17592432]](stackoverflow.com/q/78248348/17592432]) is from a beginner who has not understood that C programs express algorithms written for an abstract machine. In my answer to that Q, I attempt to demonstrate the mistake of pre-supposing a one-to-one mapping of "concept" to "concrete". Years of affirmation of "The Way Things Are" (teaching to a particular architecture) will hinder, rather than serve, the student going out into a world rife with diversity and other equally valid (perhaps better) ways of things being done. Yes, the point is "it's hard to move once straightjacketed."

@R.M. (imho) the reader gains more by making their own "discovery", after being lead to its brink, than s/he would from an explicit statement (whose phrasing may not jive with the reader's expectations.) This medium is not the formal, structured arena of a paper or conference presentation. The rules are different (imho).

@Fe2O3.. The "I" is carpentars/builders in the US...

@Questor Type "actual dimensions of a 2x4" into Google. You've picked a dubious "I" to use as a reference. :-) (This is REALLY off-topic. Let's, you & I, agree to disagree.)

While this is an enlightening anecdote about Familiarity Bias for those who haven't yet familiar (ha!) with it, this does not answer the question. :) It is too open ended to be considered containing a claim.

@justhalf Some will see and appreciate the applicability of "lighting" the OP's question with the lamp of "Familiarity Bias". Some won't. Thank you for your input.

Indeed, yes, hehe. Good art is most of the times inspiring for others.

Are you suggesting that Universities use made-up CPUs while teaching, in order to make it more difficult for their students to understand and use any real-world CPU they might encounter after finishing their studies? Why would the Universities try to make things more difficult for their students? And... what does religion have to do with any of this?

@R.M. "So if the second architecture is going to be more difficult to understand and use than the first, the best course of action would be to first teach the architecture you expect the students to normally use" Wow, no, does that completely miss the point of familiarity bias. In fact, it's exactly the worst lesson to take away from the phenomenon. (And it's why, for example, English-as-a-first-language speakers have SO MUCH trouble learning other languages, relative to others not poisoned from birth by our awful mugger of a tongue.)

@penelope I thought your answer was terrific, providing an applicable "first person" experience. You finished your courses without a predisposition toward "one over the other." That is the point. As to "religion", although it's said that many will set aside the religion of their upbringing, few of those would seek out another that may better fulfill their needs. "Preference" is often rationalised, but often based on ignorance.