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:

  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.

  In other examples given previously, I didn't just add one. I was demonstrating a different aspect of the larger point each time. If you can't extrapolate more complicated scenarios from the simpler examples I've given, or grasp the fact that the JW reckoning is skewed in favour of inflated growth rates, I couldn't be bothered explaining it to you any further.
• 

  slimboyfat

  Your examples may be complicated, but they are needlessly so.

  The important thing when measuring growth across time (diachronically) is that the measure be consistent. In respect of growth rates it does not matter if the measure of membership is strict or not so strict, what matters is that you keep measuring the same thing over time. Everything else you have introduced to the discussion is a red herring.

  JWs could cheat if they used a strict measure of membership one year, and then a less strict measure the next. That would produce an inflated one off increase. (There may have been such an effect the year the 15 minute rule for infirm ones was introduced in 2003 or whatever, for example) But you have not demonstrated that. You don't even seem to understand that is what you would need to demonstrate.
• 

  besty

  don't stop now guys - this is good stuff - we should be able to get to a mathematical proof on this point surely :-)

  SBF - please post your excel chart.
• 

  slimboyfat

  What excel chart?
• 

  Jeffro

  slimboyfat:

  You don't even seem to understand that is what you would need to demonstrate.

  You don't understand my point, therefore you imagine that's my problem.

  Your examples may be complicated, but they are needlessly so.

  That's a complete non sequitur. I didn't claim the examples I gave were 'complicated'.

  I said I gave simple examples, and that you should be able to extrapolate more complicated scenarios on your own. Apparently I was wrong.
• 

  slimboyfat

  Your point seems to be that a stricter measure produces a smaller number. (So far so good) And if you add 1 to a smaller number then it produces a larger percentage increase than if you add 1 to a larger number. Again true, but so what? Why are you adding 1 to each as if they measure the same thing when they do not? You are adding 1 strictly counted member to the JW pile and comparing it with 1 nominal member added to another church, and the effect you observe is purely the result of the synchronic difference in counting method. It does not show that the growth rate within a church depends on how strictly you count membership, which is what you initially sought to prove.
• 

  Jeffro

  I've already explained the motivation for inflating growth rates at the expense of membership figures. If you don't get it, that's your problem.
• 

  slimboyfat

  Your table only makes apparent sense because adding 1 member to each church looks superficially equivalent. But what you are doing is adding 1 strict member on one side and one non-strict member on the other side and acting as if they are the same thing.
• 

  Jeffro

  slimboyfat:

  Your table only makes apparent sense because adding 1 member to each church looks superficially equivalent. But what you are doing is adding 1 strict member on one side and one non-strict member on the other side and acting as if they are the same thing.

  Sigh. I'll give you one hint. 'XYZ Church' isn't a real church. It is an analogue for how JWs might alternatively count their own members. If JWs were to count their own members in such a way, their own reported growth rates would be lower. This demonstrates that the way they do count them inflates their growth rates, and that fact demonstrates why they calculate membership differently. I really hope this doesn't need explaining any further.
• 

  slimboyfat

  You have shown no such thing. You are not comparing like for like across the tables. An increase of 1 strict member would be equivalent to an increase of 1.06 (or thereabouts) of a weak member precisely because they measure different things. You only produce a statistical anomaly by forgetting the difference between the two during the calculation.