Insight From Statistical Report

[Lem]

Lem definitely has a chip on her shoulder, and it’s frustrating that in response to me creating a thread with fresh content that a statistics professor might be able to comment on intelligently, I instead get this baseless derail, that for good measure includes the word sh!t and an f-bomb.

I could have given Lem a patronizing lecture about reading comprehension and treating others with respect. I could have said “you should know better.” But I know she wants to be treated like one of the guys. She hit me so I hit her back. I said what I said for one purpose: to jerk her chain because she deserved to have her chain jerked. She wanted to be pissed at me for being a sexist, so I gave her the ammo she wanted.

If you are going to do the time, you might as well commit the crime.

THAT'S your excuse for THIS?????

Your thinking is cloudy today. Are you on your period or something?

[Dr Moore]

The number of full-time missionaries is interesting, but that gets clouded over time with more sisters and couples going on missions.

I can see two readings of this sentence. Depends how the word “interesting” is read.

Interesting, as in, of intrinsic measurement value, would suggest “FTM” means the relevant apples to apples metric, ie Male missionaries.

Interesting, as in, of unclear marketing value, would suggest “FTM” means Male + Female + Couples missionaries.

My first reading was the second version.

TGIF

[Lem]

The number of full-time missionaries is interesting, but that gets clouded over time with more sisters and couples going on missions.

I can see two readings of this sentence. Depends how the word “interesting” is read.

Interesting, as in, of intrinsic measurement value, would suggest “FTM” means the relevant apples to apples metric, ie Male missionaries.

Interesting, as in, of unclear marketing value, would suggest “FTM” means Male + Female + Couples missionaries.

My first reading was the second version.

TGIF

Regardless of the reading you go with, does disagreement merit saying this to a woman?

Your thinking is cloudy today. Are you on your period or something?

[Dr Moore]

No.

[Dr Moore]

At one point I attempted, just for fun, to adjust the model of church growth for the growth in users of exmo Reddit. The basic assumption I made was that 3 of 4 new exmo Reddit members was likely a newly disaffected member. It was probably garbage in-garbage out, but anyway for what its worth, the conclusion I came to based on that simple assumption was that active membership has been in decline since 2018.

[IHAQ]

Of publicly available information, I'm suggesting that the very best measure of the Church's actual strength is its ability to generate new children of record. This statistic isn't confused by changes in who is called on missions and how long missions are. It isn't messed up by the size of wards or stakes shifting over time, or by tiny temples that are only open a few hours a month. And it takes into account the demographics.

If you multiply the new children of record by average life expectancy, you put that number on the same scale as the total membership, and get a sense for how sustainable or bloated the total membership number is. A Church with 18,000,000 nominal members should have a BIC Projected Membership of 18,000,000 just to sustain that membership level through birth. The fact that it is about a quarter of that indicates that the Church's total fertility rate is a small fraction of the 2.1 children per woman that it needs in order to avoid shrinking over the long haul.

It is an interesting an accurate metric. The fact that finite numbers of children of record are declining, at the same time as total claimed membership is steadily rising, is fascinating and bears further thinking as to what is behind the trend.

[Res Ipsa]

Of publicly available information, I'm suggesting that the very best measure of the Church's actual strength is its ability to generate new children of record. This statistic isn't confused by changes in who is called on missions and how long missions are. It isn't messed up by the size of wards or stakes shifting over time, or by tiny temples that are only open a few hours a month. And it takes into account the demographics.

If you multiply the new children of record by average life expectancy, you put that number on the same scale as the total membership, and get a sense for how sustainable or bloated the total membership number is. A Church with 18,000,000 nominal members should have a BIC Projected Membership of 18,000,000 just to sustain that membership level through birth. The fact that it is about a quarter of that indicates that the Church's total fertility rate is a small fraction of the 2.1 children per woman that it needs in order to avoid shrinking over the long haul.

It is an interesting an accurate metric. The fact that finite numbers of children of record are declining, at the same time as total claimed membership is steadily rising, is fascinating and bears further thinking as to what is behind the trend.

I’m having trouble understanding your point. The fact that annual new children of record is declining over time is certainly a significant trend. But I don’t understand why you find the combination of that trend with increasing total membership to be something to be investigated.

[Analytics]

It is an interesting an accurate metric. The fact that finite numbers of children of record are declining, at the same time as total claimed membership is steadily rising, is fascinating and bears further thinking as to what is behind the trend.

I’m having trouble understanding your point. The fact that annual new children of record is declining over time is certainly a significant trend. But I don’t understand why you find the combination of that trend with increasing total membership to be something to be investigated.

We know the Church counts 16.6 million people as members. What we don't know is how many of those 16.6 million self-identify as members. If we could estimate the birth rate of the people who self-identify as members (i.e. the "Actual Birth Rate"), we can back into an estimate of the number of "members" who don't self-identify as members (i.e. the "Not Really Members").

The number of new children of record going down is partially explained by by the Actual Birth Rate going down, but it is also probably indicates that the Not Really Member group is getting bigger. If we could estimate the Actual Birth Rate over time, then we can estimate the number of Not Really Members over time. That is an interesting question.

[Res Ipsa]

We know the Church counts 16.6 million people as members. What we don't know is how many of those 16.6 million self-identify as members. If we could estimate the birth rate of the people who self-identify as members (i.e. the "Actual Birth Rate"), we can back into an estimate of the number of "members" who don't self-identify as members (i.e. the "Not Really Members").

The number of new children of record going down is partially explained by by the Actual Birth Rate going down, but it is also probably indicates that the Not Really Member group is getting bigger. If we could estimate the Actual Birth Rate over time, then we can estimate the number of Not Really Members over time. That is an interesting question.

Yeah, I can understand why that's an interesting question. Because of the manner in which the church discloses (and doesn't disclose) information, people have to get creative to try and understand what's actually happening in terms of membership. And the method you outline would give us good information regardless of whether total membership were growing, stable, or shrinking over time.

Either last year or the year before, the inflow was about 180K and the outflow was about 90K, netting 90K growth. If everything else stayed equal, the downward trend in new children of record could continue while total membership continued to increase for some time. What I'm missing is why IHAQ finds that combination of the two trends interesting.

[Res Ipsa]

The number of full-time missionaries is interesting, but that gets clouded over time with more sisters and couples going on missions.

I can see two readings of this sentence. Depends how the word “interesting” is read.

Interesting, as in, of intrinsic measurement value, would suggest “FTM” means the relevant apples to apples metric, ie Male missionaries.

Interesting, as in, of unclear marketing value, would suggest “FTM” means Male + Female + Couples missionaries.

My first reading was the second version.

TGIF

I've tried hard to see your first reading, but the problem I have is that it turns the sentence into nonsense. Let's replace what Analytics wrote with Lem's interpretation of his words: The number of male full-time missionaries is interesting, but that gets clouded over time with more sisters and couples going on missions.

That sentence is irrational. It's not possible for "more sisters and couples going on missions" to "cloud" the trend in "male full-time missionaries." Lem recognized this absurdity in her post:

To make sure I understand, when you say "full-time missionaries" but exclude sisters, you mean "male full-time missionaries", right? I get the distinction with couples, being retired and older, so a different cohort, but what is your reasoning for concluding that adding the female count to the number of "[male] full-time missionaries" 'clouds' the information coming from that piece of data? If you mean male, then SAY male, for “F”'s sake. "full-time missionaries" does NOT mean male to readers here. Only to the sexist ones.

[Boldface added]

Unfortunately, she didn't realize that Analytics' reasoning was irrational only because of an unreasonable interpretation of what Analytics wrote. Analytics' sentence makes sense only if "full time missionaries" includes couples and women. I don't see any ambiguity in Analytic's sentence, especially given the context. But even if it were, it's not reasonable to choose an interpretation that makes the sentence absurd.