by cedars 45 Replies latest jw friends
One additional question I would suggest: "Have you ever been a (a)ministerial servant, (b)elder, (c)pioneer, etc... I suggest this because some of us may be "mere" publishers now but "reached out" more in the past before finding out TTATT.
Also I would have offered up more personal info if I had been told off the bat it would be kept confidential, instead of reading that fact at the end of the survey.
Thanks for those observations Jimmy. I'll certainly take your suggested question into consideration for next year's survey.
I will also add some notes to the opening page now to assure voters that all information is confidential. Thanks for bringing that to our attention.
[edit post: the welcome screen on the survey has now been updated to remind voters that the survey is entirely confidential. Thanks Jimmy!]
Cedars
I started to do the survey, but ran into a problem right away. None of the six categories fits me. I am NOT an inactive JW. I'm not a JW at all, although I was one at one time. I'd rather you had a category for former JWs.
Hortensia
I started to do the survey, but ran into a problem right away. None of the six categories fits me. I am NOT an inactive JW. I'm not a JW at all, although I was one at one time. I'd rather you had a category for former JWs.
If you were once baptized, that makes you either inactive (if you were never disfellowshipped) or disfellowshipped/disassociated (if you were).
If you were never actually baptized, then you can fill in the unbaptized category. It may seem strange to fill in this category if you consider yourself to once have been a Witness even if you were never baptized, but we need to draw the line somewhere. For example, shunning is only applicable toward JWs who are baptized.
I hope that clarifies things!
Cedars
I see what Hortensia is saying. I do not consider myself a JW in any way, but I was one once.
But, I had no problem filling in the survey as an "Inactive JW" though, as that is what the WT would consider me, although the reality is simply former JW, in a past life !
Phizzy
I see what Hortensia is saying. I do not consider myself a JW in any way, but I was one once.
Yes, in order to group opinions together for such a complex topic it is inevitable that some voters will have to swallow labels being applied to them that they are not used to or comfortable with. Nobody is forced to take the survey if this presents a genuine problem. However, it is hugely appreciated if voters can temporarily categorize themselves according to how the organization views them - even if this is just for the duration of answering a few questions.
Cedars
EntirelyPossible - I hear what you're saying, but at the very least the online survey allows us to quantify just how many dissenters there are against the Watchtower, and how these ones feel. The survey's very existence proves that the Governing Body does not enjoy unanimous support and loyalty among the brothers.
I hate sounding critical, but analyis of data is a huge part of my job and one thing we are strongly wary of is attempting to draw any conclusion from open internet polls. The information they give us is often worse than no information at all because we tend to count the hits and ignore the misses because we have absolutely no idea how they skew, who participated, how honest they were, etc. For instance, how many people who answered elder questions were or are elders? How many people were even JWs or ex-Jws? The existence of freeminds, silentlambs, this forum and others already proved the point about the GB not enjoying unanimous support.
I suppose you could sum up my position as extreme, questioning and skeptical caution when looking at this and attempting to draw any conclusions from it.
EntirelyPossible
I hate sounding critical, but analyis of data is a huge part of my job and one thing we are strongly wary of is attempting to draw any conclusion from open internet polls.
You don't just sound critical, you are critical. Let's call a spade a spade.
We're doing our best with the resources we have. That's better than doing nothing at all, even though you bizarrely insinuate that it is "worse."
We don't insist on any firm conclusions being drawn from our data other than the fact that there are clearly a lot of disgruntled current and former Witnesses out there who are having their lives severely impacted by a high-control religious organizaton. No reasonable person would conclude that 1,488 people logged onto our survey last year just because they wanted to misrepresent their opinions or background in the organization.
Our website gives people a voice. Whether people want to listen to that voice or not is up to them.
Cedars
You don't just sound critical, you are critical. Let's call a spade a spade.
Criticism is how we get better, since we are calling a spade a spade. Since you are trying to draw conclusions from polls and data, it probably would help to talk to someone with experience in that.
We're doing our best with the resources we have. That's better than doing nothing at all, even though you bizarrely insinuate that it is "worse."
No one of criticizing the idea. And yes, doing something can be worse than doing nothing. That's my point. A bad conclusion from bad data can absolutely be 100% worse than no information. I'm not saying you are wasting your time, the data is very interesting, I am simply making the point that, right now, there is not much you can know from it and it's very easy to draw a wrong conclusion from it.
We don't insist on any firm conclusions being drawn from our data other than the fact that there are clearly a lot of disgruntled current and former Witnesses out there who are having their lives severely impacted by a high-control religious organizaton.
The OP, calling the results "shocking", suggests you are drawing conclusions. If you are collecting data that can't be trusted or verified, why would any particular result be shocking?
No reasonable person would conclude that 1,488 people logged onto our survey last year just because they wanted to misrepresent their opinions or background in the organization.
I don't think anyone ever said that. Are you suggesting that's the point I was making?
In any event, it's clear you are taking valid criticism personally when the points made are simply about how to collect data, control for variable and when it's viable to attempt to draw conclusions from it. If you are going to take things personally, there really is no basis for a discussion.
Good morning.
Thank you for sharing the numbers with us. I'm actually surprised its almost 300, that means there are at least that number of active ones who are unhappy and I'm feeling very hopeful there will be many more who was waking up to wtbt$ being a false prophet.
I thought your survey questions were fine and the actual survey wasn't intimidating me, it was the fact I was on an "apostate" website and I thought the elders would STORMTROOPER my house. Of course nothing happened :-)
G
