# World map showing net reduction in publisher numbers

by cedars 188 Replies latest jw friends

• ##### cedars

slimboyfat, the information can never be "wrong", that's a slanderous thing to say. You make it sound like I'm trying to mislead people. How can that be so when I provide the equation for my data in the OP so that people can verify the results from their own yearbooks? The information can never be "wrong", because maths doesn't lie. If you think the equation is irrelevant, fine. If you think the title given to the data produced is misleading, fine I'll change it (although you still haven't given me a title to the data that would help you sleep better).

I can't really go further in this discussion when you're going off on a crazed tangent telling me my data is "wrong" when it quite clearly isn't. Irrelevant in your point of view? Perhaps. Wrong? Absolutely no way.

Let's clear that up before I have another go at explaining things to you in a way that you will understand. It helps if you read what I write properly though, which I don't think you're doing.

Cedars

• ##### cedars

You have a map describing net increases in publishers as net reductions. How can you justify that?

Let's look at Brazil, shall we?

2010 average figures = 706,699 (a)

2011 average figures = 720,896 (b)

Difference (numeric growth) : (b) minus (a) = 14,197

How many baptized? 27,425

Take the number baptized (27,425) away from the numeric growth (14,197), and wadya know! –13,228 NET REDUCTION in publishers. How you can call a minus figure an "increase" beats me.

Just to clarify, “net” from my dictionary simply means “remaining after all deductions”. If you don’t think baptisms are a worthy “deduction” to find out whether or not publishers are sticking around, then that’s your opinion. What you can’t do is wave your hand and call it all “wrong”. How can it be wrong when it’s maths??

Cedars

• ##### slimboyfat

Brazil had a net increase of 14,197 publishers between 2010 and 2011. I am losing the will to go on here.

• ##### cedars

It's only "net" because you've deducted the 2011 figures from the 2010 figures. Do you think they should be joined together for some reason? 1,427,595 publishers??

You're the one who's said I'm "wrong", why not put your money where your mouth is and show me how? I think it's "wrong" to join 2 years' statistics together end-to-end!! Calling it "net" implies that you've deducted something that's deductible, when you haven't.

Cedars

• ##### slimboyfat

Why would adding the figures for the two years together give you the net change in publishers? Are you pulling my leg or what?

SBF is correct. Brazil did have a Net Increase of 14,197 publisher in 2011 over 2010. The key question is WHERE DID THEY COME FROM?

If 27,425 were baptized but the Net Increase was only 14,197 then 13,228 publishers are MIA. Where did they go? Probably some died, some moved away and SOME QUIT PUBLISHING! (I suppose alien abductions and The Rapture are other possibilities, but let's not go there.)

No doubt some also moved in. I suggested in an earlier post that Cedars use average annual death rates for these countries to estimate the numbers of JWs that Quit Publishing. For example, in Brazil it is estimated that there are 6.38 Deaths/1,000 people of the population. So we can estimate how many Brazilian JWs died:

720,896/1,000 = 720.896 x 6.38 = 4,600 Dead Brazilian JWs in 2011

This leaves 8,628 Brazilian JWs unaccounted for. Where are they? They are clearly missing, but where, no one knows.

There is no way to distinguish between those that are simply Inactive, those Fading, those Disfellowshipped and those Disassociated. Occasionally a WT will have a blurb about the number DF'd in a given year, but it doesn't break it out Land-by-Land as far as I can recall.

I now suggest that you ignore the Moving In/Moving Out numbers for a couple of reasons. First of all, there's no way you could get those numbers, but it really doesn't matter because the JWs that move away from one country to another but keep publishing only change the numbers for those two countries. The Total Worldwide Publisher count would remain the same, one country up, another down, total unchanged. Probably this horizontal movement is statistically insignificant for the larger countries anyway.

• ##### cedars

slimboyfat

In your counter-argument, you took the 2011 figure (720,896), deducted the 2010 figure (706,699), and called the resulting figure of 14,197 a "net increase".

I argue that there's nothing "net" about it, because you haven't deducted anything, other than the 2010 figure, which has no place being added to another year's figure anyway in this context.

What you actually have is a difference that constitutes a "gross increase", gross meaning "a total without deductions".

I think if anyone misunderstands the meaning of the word "net" and how it can be applied, it is you.

Cedars

• ##### slimboyfat

Thank God 00DAD for some sanity! I agree with your post entirely.

The one caveat I would add is what I have mentioned before about not all publishers being baptised and not all those who cease publishing ever having been baptised. This complicates the situation somewhat and makes any calculations about how many are "missing in action" tentative at best.

• ##### slimboyfat

Thank God 00DAD for some sanity! I agree with your post entirely.

The one caveat I would add is what I have mentioned before about not all publishers being baptised and not all those who cease publishing ever having been baptised. This complicates the situation somewhat and makes any calculations about how many are "missing in action" tentative at best.

• ##### sir82

Sorry, gotta side with SBF on this one.

It's not a "data" issue, it's a nomenclature issue.

Simplifying it with round made up numbers:

Situation 1:

JW population at 2010: 100

New baptisms: 10

JW population at 2011: 105

There was a gross increase of 10, a net increase of 5.

Situation 2:

JW population at 2010: 100

New baptisms: 5

JW population at 2011: 98

There was a gross increase of 5, a net decrease of 2

Remind me never to hire Cedars to be my accountant!