And what if some of those publishers just haven't decided to get baptized?
World map showing net reduction in publisher numbers
by cedars 188 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
cedars
slimboyfat
I noticed you were very selective with which parts of 00DAD's interjection you agreed with.
He agrees that 13,228 can be considered as roughly representative of the number of people who LEFT the religion in Brazil in 2011 irrespective of the cause. People leaving cannot rightly be described as an "increase" - rather a "reduction" in overall numbers, because roughly that many people left, or died, or went elsewhere.
Please tell me that you finally get it. I'm an hour ahead of you timezone wise, remember that. I'd like to go to bed at some point before this maths lesson finishes.
Cedars
[edit post: I'm sorry the following comment was aimed at sir82 and NOT 00DAD: "Sorry, but you're wrong. You're assuming baptisms represent "gross increase". That's not how it works. Many in the publisher figures are unbaptized pubs who actually get baptized the same year."]
-
00DAD
Cedars: Sorry, but you're wrong. You're assuming baptisms represent "gross increase". That's not how it works. Many in the publisher figures are unbaptized pubs who actually get baptized the same year.
Yes, I understand your point and while you're technically correct there are two reasons to ignore if (I believe) for the purposes of your World Map:
- You can't possibly get that data; but it doesn't matter because,
- That particular difference would wash out over time and tend to equalize. An "positive" imbalance now would be countered by a "negative" imbalance either from before or coming later.
This is much like the difference between various financial statements. A Balance Sheet is a "snapshot" at a particular time of
Assets - Liabilities = Net Worth (Equity)
It is different from a Profit and Loss Statement which subtracts Expenses from Income for a specific period of time (a month, a quarter or a year) and indicates the Net Income/Loss for that period.
Neither of these statements indicate the Cashflow of a business. A business might have excellent Net Worth and Income on paper but have poor Cashflow. Perhaps the income is in Accounts Receivable and/or non-liquid assets. Whatever. Business that are well run spend a lot of time and energy collecting and analyzing this data to try and clearly understand how they are doing and how they can improve. That being said, it's an axiom of Generally Accepted Accounting Principals that it's not worth spending hours to track down an error of a penny or to find a missing dime.
You or I will NEVER be able to get all the data one would need to do an accurate, detailed analysis of what's really going on with the WTBTS. The necessary data simply is not available to the public, including the R&F JWs. This is by design. The WT leadership clearly does NOT want us to know what's really going on. This is why they publish mis-leading BS like this:
"In some countries one marriage out of every two or three ends in divorce. But the above-mentioned survey indicated that presently only 4.9 percent of the Witnesses are divorced or separated from their mates." - Awake 1997 Sep 8 p.11 A People Taught to Love
Comparing the percentage of ALL JWs that are CURRENTLY married to an alleged statistic of DIVORCE RATES in "some countries" is a useless, deliberately misleading manipulation of data to push an agenda. It's comparing apples to orangutans.
Nevertheless, we can make some interesting educated guesses to get a pretty idea of what's going on in the world with JWs. While we can't get a handle on the exact numbers it's easy to see that even in lands with a Net Increase year to year, if the number getting baptized is larger than that Net Increase, people are leaving. Why? Where? and How Many? is the 64 Million Dollar question.
Have fun playing with the numbers.
00DAD
-
slimboyfat
I agree with every word of 00DAD's post. He clearly knows what he is talking about and has made sensible suggestions for approaching the problem of working out how many JWs are "missing in action".
Sure people have left. And sure that constitutes a reduction. It does not however mean that there was a net reduction in publishers. How on earth could it mean that when there was a net increase in publishers of 14,197?
-
cedars
00DAD
you're technically correct
Thanks, finally someone agrees. I can go to bed without thinking I've lost it completely.
All I would say in response is - the numbers were never intended as a definitive guide, just a rough indication that publisher retention is worsening regardless of the cause. Slimboyfat thinks these equations are worthless without having all statistics fresh from the GBs desk that aren't on the worldwide report. As much as I'd love to see them, I'm happy to get by without them - especially when the figures show that 75% of countries LOST publishers once you take away baptisms, which are on the wane.
Cedars
-
Leolaia
2011 total no. baptized - (2011 average publishers - 2010 average publishers) = net reduction in publishers during 2011
Aren't many of those baptized already publishers? A significant proportion of those who are baptized are born-in.
-
slimboyfat
...correct about not all publishers being baptised. (Which I also pointed out) Not correct about a net increase being a net reduction, obviously.
-
cedars
slimboyfat
FINALLY we're getting somewhere!!! Just when I thought all hope was lost.
Sure people have left. And sure that constitutes a reduction. It does not however mean that there was a net reduction in publishers. How on earth could it mean that when there was a net increase in publishers of 14,197?
As I've said before, multiple times, 14,197 was a GROSS increase for Brazil. I say GROSS, because that figure doesn't allow for any deductions. It was arrived at from a straightforward difference between one year, and another. Please tell me what actual deductions have been made to that figure, and you can then start calling it NET. Until then, it's GROSS because nothing has been deducted.
I would also like to add that deductibles are subjective. What I may consider a worthy deductible, you may not, and vice versa. As it happens, I consider baptisms a worthy deductible, because baptisms are a growth indicator, and I want to get a look at the retention figures - and find out how many people stick around and/or leave. It turns out when you deduct the growth indicator (baptisms) from the GROSS increase (14,197), you get a NET (we can now use "net" because we've deducted something)... a NET reduction, because the numbers have gone down by 13,228. If the numbers went up as a result of the deduction, well, be my guest to call it a NET INCREASE. But the fact that the number has gone down and not up sort of forces your hand.
Capiche?
Cedars
-
cedars
Leolaia
Aren't many of those baptized already publishers? A significant proportion of those who are baptized are born-in.
Absolutely correct, I've been saying that all along. However, baptisms are a worthy "growth indicator" assuming that roughly that amount of people will be attracted to the religion during the course of the year. However, just because it's a growth indicator, doesn't make it a "gross increase", as sir82 suggested.
Cedars
-
slimboyfat
You simply don't understand what gross and net mean, I am afraid, and despie my best efforts, and others, you won't understand.