World map showing net reduction in publisher numbers

by cedars 188 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  cedars

  sir82

  Sorry to be so picayune, but if you are going to play with numbers, you have to get the terminology right. If your use of terms is misleading, it defeats your purpose.

  You don't need to apologise. I very much appreciate and value your input. However, without wishing to dredge up the argument, if you check my first two responses to slimboyfat, I asked him directly what he would call the figures, and he came up blank. The reason for this is because he saw no merit in the equation to begin with.

  I have been actively seeking on numerous occasions on this thread to "get the terminology right" as you put it, but it is only on these last couple of pages that helpful suggestions have started to come in as the dust settles, which I had been trying to solicit all along. I hope you understand my frustration. I also hope you understand why people would be confused if I put the words "Net Increase in Publishers" above a chart that depicts the estimated number of people leaving.

  Cedars
• 

  cedars

  For those who are interested, I will do a revised chart entitled "Estimated Numbers of Missing Publishers" once I have factored in the mortality rates for each country. I will post it on this thread when finished. I hope people will find it helpful.

  Cedars
• 

  slimboyfat

  if you check my first two responses to slimboyfat, I asked him directly what he would call the figures, and he came up blank. The reason for this is because he saw no merit in the equation to begin with.

  Are you a mind reader? I never said that or meant it. Now that you seem to have eventually accepted you misunderstood what a net decrease is, a little more humility might be in order, rather than putting words in my mouth and claiming I said things I never said.
• 

  cedars

  slimboyfat - I'm sorry you think I lack humility. I think that you and other posters misunderstood what I was trying to show. I said right at the beginning that I'm no mathematician or statistician, which is why I openly tried to solicit suggestions from you as to what you would call it instead. Rather than offering helpful suggestions, you made it very clear that you considered the whole undertaking pointless.

  Lazarus has stepped in and done in two posts what you failed to do in dozens - i.e. given me an alternative. As I keep saying, at their most basic level, I maintain that I used the words correctly (or at least, with no intention to mislead as you implied), but I can appreciate if this has caused confusion, and I apologise for any confusion caused. Since you're the only one who seemed distraught by the terminology, you can consider my apology as aimed at you. However, I certainly won't apologise for running the equations in the first place, as I see enormous merit in the information (which you dismissed as "tentative at best") even though it only comprises an estimate.

  Cedars
• 

  Pistoff

  I assumed that "net" (meaning after deductions) "reduction" (meaning, in this case, the number who have left) was a sufficient title. I find it hard to call it an "increase" when the results of the calculation show people leaving.

  People have always left the JW's; they have still usually showed a net, after losses, increase. Some years, after 1914, 1975, etc, they showed a net decrease. For those years they had fewer stated publishers than the year before, they had a NET decrease, even had the number of baptized gone up dramatically; what matters is what is left after all the modifiers are taken into account.

  Net gain means that the gains outweight the losses. Net loss means the losses outweight the gains.

  You are focused on the rate or ratio of baptized to publisher gain and how it is changing; I am very interested in this too, but it is not 'net' anything, just part of the picture.
• 

  cedars

  Pistoff

  Net gain means that the gains outweight the losses. Net loss means the losses outweight the gains.

  That's a nice, simple and concise explanation. Thank you very much. I was using the term "net reduction/decrease" to denote decrease after deductions, but I can see how this was unintentionally misleading. Equally misleading (in my mind) would be to put "net increase" at the top of a chart that shows an estimate of how many people are leaving, as was constantly suggested. I'm glad we've reached a happy medium with "Estimated Numbers of Missing Publishers".

  Cedars
• 

  00DAD

  Cedars: Until now, nobody has given me a better title for these stats ...

  Not so, I called them MIA (Missing in Action) a few pages ago. Not a "Theocratic Term" but accurate nonetheless.

  In case you haven't had a chance to look at it yet, I suggest you check out Paul Grundy's work on this subject on his jwfacts website:

  Jehovah's Witness Statistics

  There he uses these terms:

  • Missing
  • Number Leaving
  • Number that Stop Publishing
  • Stopped Publishing compared to Number Baptised
  • People Unaccounted For
  • and more ...

  Hope that helps!

  00DAD
• 

  bobycamille

  Please do not believe any liar. Just read Jehovah’s Witnesses 2012 Year Book, and then you could point out on page 50 that the rate of their increase is 2.5%. We are aware that those Jehovah’s worshipers are hated by enemies .
• 

  cedars

  bobycamille - nobody is lying to anyone. We are aware that there is still a small amount of growth in publishers. However, if you examine the figures more closely, particularly the fact that 33 countries have little or no Jehovah's Witnesses whatsoever, the overall picture for the "global" preaching work is far more depressing.

  

  http://jwsurvey.org/cedars-blog/under-the-microscope-the-watch-tower-societys-claims-to-divine-direction-part-1

  http://jwsurvey.org/cedars-blog/under-the-microscope-the-watch-tower-societys-claims-to-divine-direction-part-2

  Cedars
• 

  slimboyfat

  If you read the whole thread bobycamille you'll notice that I pointed out the map was wrong to claim a net reduction in publisher numbers.

  I happen to think that JWs are still doing quite well in terms of growth when you compare them with other religious groups. But whether JWs are growing or whether they are declining, in my personal opinion, it doesn't change the fact that fundamentally they don't have the truth as they claim. Theirs is an ideology that is not worth following because it represents a narrow conception of the world and its possibilities that impoverishes one's opportunities and capacity for a genuine and beautiful life.