World map showing net reduction in publisher numbers

by cedars 188 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  cedars

  Thanks nugget and factfinder, some good points there.

  I'm just correcting something I said above! Damned lack of sleep....

  The figures above, however approximate, serve as a useful tool to see that something isn't right in JWland. The Society is struggling with retention - i.e. the number leaving isn't keeping pace with the number coming in.

  What I meant to say was, the number coming in isn't keeping pace with the number leaving (of which the number of deaths is a small portion). If baptisms or the "growth indicator" were keeping pace, the calculation would indeed yield a "net increase", or at least break even - but it doesn't.

  Cedars
• 

  sir82

  Good lord, is this still not settled yet?

  As I mentioned several pages back, the issue is that Cedars doesn't understand the definition of the term "net decrease". What he calls a "net decrease" is in actuality "an unaccounted-for gross drop in publishers".

  Once again my example - but this time using accounting terms, maybe it will be clearer.

  Situation 1:

  Company assets at 1/1/2010 (i.e. number of publishers): $100,000

  Company sales during 2010 (i.e. number of baptisms): $10,000

  Company assets at 1/1/2011 (i.e. number of publishers): $103,000

  Net profit to the company (i.e. net increase to number of publishers): $3,000

  Information not divulged, but that can be backed into: Expenses (i.e. unaccounted-for lost publishers): $7,000

  Cedars keeps saying that the $7,000 is a "net decrease" but it isn't. The words are not defined that way.

  The "net increase" is +3,000. That is a factor of the gross increase (+10,000) minus the gross decrease (-7,000).

  Once again - if Cedars ever offers to do your books, run away!

  Overall, though, despite the confusion over names & definitions, his point is a good one. The number of unaccounted-for publisher losses (caused by fading, disfellowshipping, etc.) is increasing in western lands. At some point, probably within the next 10 years or so, the number of those unaccounted-for publisher decreases will outnumber the count of new baptisms, and we'll actually see the net decrease that Cedars is so anxious to see.
• 

  cedars

  sir82 - As far as I'm concerned, it's settled. As I've tried to explain, I use the term "net decrease" in its broadest possible sense, i.e.

  Net = after deductions

  decrease = a reduction in figures

  In this case, the 'deduction' is the baptism figure, or my "growth indicator". In most countries, once this is taken from the gross increase (difference in publishers from one year to the next) you have a "net" (after deductions) "decrease" (the number goes down).

  I appreciate your attempts to use financial analogies to explain my error in describing the figures, but I don't think they're entirely applicable in this instance.

  I note that you still find the information helpful, even though you question the title I have given the data for whatever reason. slimboyfat attempted in this thread to call the equation irrelevant, or "wrong". Hence my lengthy attempts to reason with him.

  I also note that you suggest in your previous reasoning that the baptism figure denotes "gross increase" - this is entirely wrong and misleading for a number of reasons. This assertion makes you less equipped to do anyone's books than even me!

  Cedars
• 

  cedars

  sir82

  Overall, though, despite the confusion over names & definitions, his point is a good one. The number of unaccounted-for publisher losses (caused by fading, disfellowshipping, etc.) is increasing in western lands. At some point, probably within the next 10 years or so, the number of those unaccounted-for publisher decreases will outnumber the count of new baptisms, and we'll actually see the net decrease that Cedars is so anxious to see.

  Having pondered on your words, I think I see where the difference in opinion is. When I say "net decrease", I'm not trying to suggest that growth is heading downwards, because clearly it isn't. I'm merely pointing out that growth is stagnating to the point that publisher retention is no longer keeping pace with influx, or conversion (baptisms). I call it a "net" because I've made a deduction, and "decrease" because the numbers go down after that deduction is made. It isn't a decrease in the way we often think of it, but it's a decrease nonetheless.

  Probably "reduction" is a better word, the word that is actually used for this thread. If it's a real bone of contention with people on this board, I'll happily yield and call it whatever you like, but I still think the equation and the figures yielded by it have value.

  I hope this clarifies things. And by the way...

  Once again - if Cedars ever offers to do your books, run away!

  I would never offer to do anyone else's accounting anyway, because I hate maths! I hate maths even more when I come up with figures from a genuine equation and have them summarily denounced as "wrong"...

  Cedars
• 

  slimboyfat

  Cedars doesn't understand the definition of the term "net decrease".

  That's about the size of it. He's hardly covered himself in glory over a simple factual correction. I doubt lurking JW loyalists will be impressed. Quite disappointing, but I for one am tired of banging my head against a brick wall.
• 

  cedars

  He's hardly covered himself in glory over a simple factual correction. I doubt lurking JW loyalists will be impressed.

  ...says the man who doesn't think the Society overstates the scope and effectiveness of its preaching work around the world. You are well placed to speak on behalf of JW loyalists, I'll give you that much.

  And you changed your tune a few times over the course of the discussion, from dismissing the equation outright as "wrong" to using it yourself. Quite enlightening. Definitely not worth going to bed at 1am though...

  Cedars
• 

  00DAD

  Good morning Gentlemen!

  Sorry to see the arguing continues. I thought we were trying to figure out the same things: HOW MANY JWs are leaving the ranks each year and WHY?

  Some die, some are DF'd or DA'd and some just fade away. Deaths can be estimated as we've already discussed, those leaving via the other ways can't be, at least not by any method I'm aware of.

  There is of course no way to know exactly, probably the WTBTS doesn't even know, but I BELIEVE they deliberately withhold sufficient information to calculate it. Nevertheless, we can make educated guesses and see the trend. Isn't that our goal? Isn't that what Cedars has been trying to determine from the available data? Isn't that what Slimboy and Sir82 as well as others have been trying to suggest ways to do that as intelligently as possible?

  That being said, there are some other interesting questions I'd be curious to get answered:

  • What percentage of people DF'd are Born-ins? Converts?
  • Same thing for those DA'd
  • Same thing for Faders
  • How many people become publishers but never get baptized?
    • Has this been an historically consistent percentage of publishers or has it deviated dramatically during periods such as the pre-1975 debacle?
  • What is the average length of time between becoming a "publisher" and baptism?
    • That estimated "lag-time" would help make a stronger correlation between "Number Baptized" in a given year and the corresponding "Publisher Increase" for the same period.
  • For those getting baptized, what percent are Born-ins? Converts?
  • What percentage of DF'd individuals return? DA'd? Faders?

  Interestingly, the Pew Forum published this telling survey result in their Key Findings and Statistics on Religion in America:

  Jehovah's Witnesses have the lowest retention rate of any religious tradition. Only 37% of all those who say they were raised as Jehovah's Witnesses still identify themselves as Jehovah's Witnesses. - (From a nationwide survey conducted from May 8 to Aug. 13, 2007)

  This would suggest that 63% of those DF'd, DA'd or simply Fading are "Born-ins" (at least in the USA). This would also imply that JW converts are more likely to remain JWs all their life than those raised as JWs. Of course not all raised as JWs get baptized, but (from what I can discern) the Pew Survey Results do not distinguish between those that were baptized and those that were not but that later left the religion. (No, I did not read all 210 pages of The Report or study all the detailed Data Tables. Be my guest).

  Some things to think about!

  00DAD
• 

  cedars

  00DAD

  Sorry to see the arguing continues.

  The arguing doesn't continue. Hopefully it's stopped.

  There is of course no way to know exactly, probably the WTBTS doesn't even know, but I BELIEVE they deliberately withhold sufficient information to calculate it. Nevertheless, we can make educated guesses and see the trend. Isn't that our goal?

  That was the idea. But apparently if you can't come up with a name for the results that satisfies slimboyfat, the results are meaningless.

  Isn't that what Slimboy and Sir82 as well as others have been trying to suggest ways to do that as intelligently as possible?

  It would have been great if slimboy could have suggested alternative ways - that would certainly have been more helpful. Instead he simply derided all efforts to come up with statistics that portray the Society in a negative light. I repeatedly asked him for a "description" that he would be happy with, but all I met with was silence, and more derision. He changed his tune more recently when TheListener offered a constructive suggestion (to call the figures "An Approximation of Missing Members on an Annual Basis"), but I think that was just an attempt to save face. Sir82 has definitely been more helpful, and has at least grasped the import of the figures, even though he seems to think I want to do people's accounts - which I most certainly don't.

  That being said, there are some other interesting questions I'd be curious to get answered:

  Sorry to throw the towel in so easily my friend, but I'd rather leave this side of things alone for a while. I never pretended to be a mathematician or statistician and made that very clear in the OP. I'd rather stick to subjects where people won't shoot me down in flames for giving a name to a set of statistics that doesn't meet with their approval.

  Cedars
• 

  Lazarus

  Hey Cedars,

  first I want to thank you for your hard work in this and many other threads.

  If you add some other elements, like average death rates, you can get useful info about defection numbers.

  As an "semi-pro-statician" I have to say, you got the terminology completely wrong. Of course you can name the things the way you like, but there is an established nomenclature in statistics. slimboyfat, 00DAD and sir82 said 100% correct what net increase/decrease means. Thats a fact.

  Like you said, your not an statician and therefore using the wrong wording is no problem at all. But if people suggest you made a mistake, you should maybe be less defending and more open to adjust your information.
• 

  cedars

  Thanks Lazarus

  If you read this thread, you will note that from the beginning I was asking for a more appropriate term. However, none of the posters you listed provided me with one. Could you suggest something for the diagram in the OP?

  It's nice to get input from an actual "semi-pro statistician"!!

  Cedars