by cedars 188 Replies latest jw friends
I'm working at the moment, but I'll answer in full later on. However, I know perfectly well what a net figure is - I just think you have unreasonable expectations of the stats I've shown. Also, you haven't given me an alternative name for the chart (which was your initial gripe) despite me asking you several times.
Cedars
Here is my equation, given in the OP - what would you rather call it?
This has been calculated by means of the following equation for each country:
2011 total no. baptized - (2011 average publishers - 2010 average publishers) = net reduction in publishers during 2011
Cedars
Whatever you choose to call it, it would be less confusing and inaccurate if you did not take net increases in publisher numbers and call them net decreases. Surely that is simply stating the obvious!
Using your type of calculation I could just as well show a "net reduction" in world population.
worldwide births - (world population in 2011 - world population in 2010)
Would you call the result the "net reduction" in world population? It's ridiculous.
It's not "ridiculous", I'll explain later when I have time - although it's a shame that I need to.
Everyone else seems to get it.
Cedars
Groupthink and confirmation bias in action here. Don't fool yourself.
Net increases are net decreases and black is white and we are all agreed so that is fine. I give up.
I would be interested to know if you can identify any country with publisher increases greater than the number of baptisms for two or more years running. I am at a loss why you think it is significant that it happened in any given year in Mexico or elsewhere.
Slimboyfat - I'll first give you a bit of background....
Another poster on this forum started a thread asking "which countries are losing the most publishers?" or words to that effect. I decided to investigate. It occurred to me that there is no reliable way of finding out how many publishers leave the organization each year (without asking the Society, of course), but you CAN get some idea simply by subtracting the number of baptisms (the only real statistic expressing "growth" in membership) and seeing whether there is a negative difference as a result.
Obviously, it is far more complicated than that. For example, the same people in the "baptized" figure will already have been reporting among the total publishers as unbaptized publishers. However, the "baptized" figure does still indicate roughly how many new adherents are being attracted annually, assuming that those attracted in a given year are roughly the same as those attracted the year before.
What you find when you "factor out" the baptism figures in this way is that, in the majority of countries such as America and Brazil, publisher retention is not keeping pace with publisher attraction. You obviously can't see why it is useful to know this, but it is useful for two reasons:
So you see, producing a "net reduction" that discludes baptism figures is a useful figure after all, because all indications are that fewer people are getting baptized, at least over the last two years.
After crunching the numbers, I discovered that 152 lands LOST publishers after baptisms were removed, compared with only 53 that GAINED publishers regardless (2 countries had precisely 0 gain/loss). Even without baptisms, Mexico gained 7,560 publishers, "30 Other Lands" gained 1,044 publishers, Guatemala gained 524, Honduras gained 139, Panama gained 114, Venezuala 95, and so on.
Yes, there are many factors to consider. Mortality rates are a major one, and I haven't dismissed the idea of factoring those in at some stage. The net increases in publishers for those 53 countries mentioned above may result in higher than normal baptism figures in next year's report, as newly added unbaptized publishers from 2011 get baptized in 2012. However, for now, I for one find the above figures quite enlightening. It seems that others do too. The stats show that the majority of countries (152 versus 53) seem to be struggling with publisher retention. 75% of countries struggling with retention compared with 25% experiencing growth regardless is surely more than just an anomaly.
The USA, the heartland of the organization, would have been 13,228 publishers down last year if it had not attracted roughly 32,953 new ones (assuming the number baptized roughly corresponds with the number of new converts attracted). Yes, publishers move around. Yes, people die. The actual number of those leaving may vary from 13,228 accordingly - but it's still a useful number to have as a ballpark figure. Even more useful when you consider that the Society won't be able to rely on its baptism figures to hide the number of those leaving forever.
Now do you understand? Or is it all still so "ridiculous"??!
Cedars
No it's still ridiculous I'm afraid: a map described as showing "net reduction in publisher numbers" which highlights countries that mostly have net increases in publishers is wrong headed whatever way you look at it.
From your explanation what you are trying to show is that baptisms tend to be greater than net increases, but that is always necessarily going to be the case because of deaths and people leaving. But even if no one left the Witnesses at all, your calculation would still produce negative figures just because people die. In such a situation, where even if no one left the organisation, you would still calculate "net"(!?) decreases, doesn't that make you pause for thought?
slimboyfat
The only thing that makes me "pause for thought" is the realization that you haven't read what I've just said properly, otherwise you would not have come out with this...
But even if no one left the Witnesses at all, your calculation would still produce negative figures just because people die.
The above statement is simply not true, as I've already explained.
I feel exhausted at this point, like I'm going round in circles with you. I can't explain it any better than I just have, and you still don't get it - which is obvious from you've just said. I'm sorry, but I give up reasoning with you. Suffice to say, you think this information is worthless, I don't.
Cedars
I think the "information" is wrong, not merely worthless. You have a map describing net increases in publishers as net reductions. How can you justify that?
You have not explained or refuted the fact that excluding deaths necessarily always results in discrepancies between baptisms and publisher increases even before defections are taken into consideration.
