If you are simply making the rather obvious point that the smaller the initial figure then the greater is the percentage increase produced by any ordinal addition then fair enough. The converse would of course be true for any decrease, which would be "overstated" if you want to press the point. But in fact we are not talking about single congregations, and the addition of single members to that congregation, but worldwide memberships involving movements of hundreds of thousands annually. Percentage movements are what matter at that level, and consistency rather than strictness in counting is what matters when making comparisons over time.
There are more Jehovah's Witnesses in Portugal than there are Scientologists in the whole world
by cedars 83 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
Jeffro
slimboyfat:
If you are simply making the rather obvious point that the smaller the initial figure then the greater is the percentage increase produced by any ordinal addition then fair enough. The converse would of course be true for any decrease, which would be "overstated" if you want to press the point. But in fact we are not talking about single congregations, and the addition of single members to that congregation, but worldwide memberships involving movements of hundreds of thousands annually. Percentage movements are what matter at that level, and consistency rather than strictness in counting is what matters when making comparisons over time.
Apparently you still don't understand how the difference compounds over time, or that the significance compounds with the number of congregations. Additionally, I have also previously indicated in this thread that is more likely for an inactive member to become counted as an active member than it is for an active member to become counted as inactive, because inactivity is necessary for an entire year before it is reflected in peak publishers, but any activity by a previously inactive member immediately includes them in peak publishers (sometimes twice).
-
steve2
If I am missing your point Jeffro, it could be because your point is too subtle and/or you need to explain it more carefully. I have a double major in Sociology and Psychology in addition to post-graduate papers in statistics so if your argument eludes me, it probably eludes a lot of other reasonably educated others who are reading your posts. You appear to 'slip away' from the compelling points made by SBF. BTW, adopting an exasperated tone, whilst undoubtedly serving some expressive purpose for you, doesn't at all add a much-needed clarity to your argument.
-
steve2
I think I see some parts of your argument Jeffro. You are right that an inactive witness who preaches for a single hour at some point in the past year will show up in the numbers that could go towards peak publishers. The 'virtue' of this simple method of counting is its consistency. But the rest of your argument needs clarification (as I stated above).
-
Jeffro
steve2:
I have a double major in Sociology and Psychology in addition to post-graduate papers in statistics so if your argument eludes me, it probably eludes a lot of other reasonably educated others who are reading your posts.
If that's the case, surely you should be able to understand that the number of converts already associated with a JW congregation (i.e. born in) are not accounted for in the same way as in membership statistics of other groups. As a result, the starting figure (i.e. only 'publishers') for determining reported growth is lower, so the result is higher when dividing by that amount. I don't think I can simplify it any further - see chart already provided above. It is not merely a matter of 'more restrictive reporting' because the same pool of people (i.e. children already associated with JWs) are actually the source of most of the members, which are inherently counted by other groups.
-
slimboyfat
No using a single congregation and adding 1 member obscures the analysis for a number of reasons. Not least the fact that you can't add 0.94 of a member, or whatever precise figure would make the two actually comparable rather than apparently comparable using small ordinal numbers. Add a single member to each religious group numbering millions and your difference in percentages all but disappears, to the seventh decimal point or something.
Plus you are not taking into consideration the fact that the additional member added to the strict church is not the same as the nominal member added to a more liberal church. You are taking a strict measure on one column and comparing it with a weaker measure on the other column and imagining that the difference accumulates over time within each group rather than being a stable discrepancy between the groups.
-
Jeffro
slimboyfat:
No using a single congregation and adding 1 member obscures the analysis for a number of reasons. Not least the fact that you can't add 0.94 of a member, or whatever precise figure would make the two actually comparable rather than apparently comparable using small ordinal numbers. Add a single member to each religious group numbering millions and your difference in percentages all but disappears, to the seventh decimal point or something.
That might be a valid claim if only one congregation had an increase in members. A growth rate doesn't represent individual fractions of a person. And we're not talking about ordinal numbers.
Plus you are not taking into consideration the fact that the additional member added to the strict church is not the same as the nominal member added to a more liberal church. You are taking a strict measure on one column and comparing it with a weaker measure on the other column and imagining that the difference accumulates over time within each group rather than being a stable discrepancy between the groups.
Yeah, because all JWs who report field service once every couple of months are doing it because they love it.
-
Laika
If XYZ church and JW church each have 3 births only XYZ would count them as members which would inflate their growth above JWs. And memorial attendance is growing at about the same percentage rate so if they counted growth in another way it seems to me it would still work out about the same.
-
Jeffro
Laika:
If XYZ church and JW church each have 3 births only XYZ would count them as members which would inflate their growth above JWs. And memorial attendance is growing at about the same percentage rate so if they counted growth in another way it seems to me it would still work out about the same.
True. And when a JW child becomes a publisher, they get an increase that XYZ doesn't get.
But it's not a one-to-one comparison, because the result is still skewed. JW growth rates are based on publishers, so the addition of a single member represents a greater growth rate.
In the chart below, one JW child becomes a 'publisher', analogous to a child becoming an adult for XYZ (which has no bearing on XYZ's growth rate). And one child is born in each, which only affects the growth rate for XYZ.
But by the JW reckoning, their growth rate is higher.
-
slimboyfat
I meant to say cardinal number rather than ordinal.
That might be a valid claim if only one congregation had an increase in members. A growth rate doesn't representindividual fractions of a person. And we're not talking about ordinal numbers.
But you did not present a consistent growth rate , you simply added 1 member to each congregation. And then made the rather obvious observation that 1 added to a smaller number represents a larger percentage increase than 1 added to a larger number. Why you were adding 1 to each group or what you think it shows was not explained. I think you are very confused about what you are doing. Yeah, because all JWs who report field service once every couple of months are doing it because they love it. Huh? Where did I say any such thing and what is your point?
