Follow-up post explaining research rationale

[Joe Duarte via Digitalmars-d]

On Monday, 9 May 2016 at 20:29:12 UTC, Joe Duarte wrote:
> On Monday, 9 May 2016 at 20:09:35 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
>
>> I'd also be surprised if you find an empirical gender gap 
>> after controlling for programming language syntax, too. Even 
>> if we grant that PL syntax is suboptimal, why would that 
>> result in a gender bias? But, hey, you never really know until 
>> you actually collect the data...
>
> I forgot to mention the math. You can run the model in your 
> head. If group W has more career options than group M, W will 
> be underrepresented in career domain A. The effect will be 
> larger if A is less appealing than W's other options, ceteris 
> paribus and with some starting assumptions. (But it doesn't 
> need to be, if W has more options than M.)
>
> If aspects of career domain A are *equally frustrating* for 
> members of groups W and M, W will still be underrepresented 
> (and M overrepresented) if people in W have more options. So we 
> don't even need it to be the case that bizarre programming 
> language design disproportionately annoys women for bizarre 
> programming language design to result in the 
> underrepresentation of women.
>
> JD

(Assuming A is included in the set of options for both groups, 
and is equally available to them.)