# Data Driven Masonry



## Forthright (Sep 7, 2020)

A group of brothers has organized an effort to collect data about Masonry and make it generally available, to help lodges & Grand Lodges better the craft.

Continue reading...


----------



## TheThumbPuppy (Sep 7, 2020)

They've only got one video about declining membership, as far as I can find.
If that's the case, it's rather underwhelming.


----------



## Forthright (Sep 7, 2020)

They're getting started.  As with all things, Freemasonry is a volunteer thing.  It's useful to organize something so that people with data can show up and begin the process.


----------



## Winter (Sep 10, 2020)

The peak numbers after WWI and WWII were aberrations.  Masons looking at those numbers as the ideal are obviously going to see a grim picture for our future.  This Chicken Little effect is further exacerbated by so many grand lodges trying everything they can for decades to get their membership back to those "glory days" that never were.  One day classes, minimal or no memorization, reduced standards, dues remaining artificially low, and a host of other "fixes" enacted to help boost flagging membership have done nothing but make the problem worse as our lodges continue to carry 80% of "paper brothers" on their rolls who couldn't even tell you the pass if their life depended on it.  Now lodges across the country are burdened with buildings that were built during the boom years that they can no longer afford to maintain as they keep trying to dig themselves out of the hole and bring in as many new members as they can to keep the lights on.  But, as Will Rogers said, "If you find yourself in a hole, stop digging."

The decline is a correction.  We need to get back to our roots with smaller more personal lodges that focus on the Work.  Ditch these buildings that demand we maintain a large and growing membership.  Make Masons, not members.  This is not new information.  Many Brothers have shown the roadmap to success and that the declining membership is a good thing.  But as usual, we are our own worst enemy as we keep trying the same things to bring in more new members to reverse the decline that so many fail to understand.  this Data Driven Masonry looks to be just one more group aimed at boosting membership as evidenced by them referencing the decline since the membership spikes of 1914 and the 1950's.


----------



## Forthright (Sep 10, 2020)

Winter said:


> this Data Driven Masonry looks to be just one more group aimed at boosting membership as evidenced by them referencing the decline since the membership spikes of 1914 and the 1950's



This isn't correct -- the group itself is basically just seeking to get better insights into what is happening within the craft.  Citing the declining membership numbers isn't related to an opinion about what the number should be.  It's about observing I think that we don't really understand why it's happening.

We have a lot of stories that we tell ourselves without real concrete evidence, such as that the decline is a correction.  Why are you so sure about this?  Where is your evidence?  Membership was growing robustly in the late 1800s and early 1900s before any of the world wars, so big membership growth being mostly an issue of veterans returning from war doesn't ring true.  Previous work done by the Scottish Rite has talked about member satisfaction, and what men want.  And some of our individual experience says that many lodges aren't providing that.  Why is that not the answer?  

Look the point here isn't to call you out or demand evidence, it's to point out that Masonry has none on either side of the argument.   One of the quotes in the post was this:  "Without data, you're just another person with an opinion".

I think Data Driven masonry is a desire to move past opinion and understand what's actually going on.   No wonder one day conferrals don't seem help.  No wonder we don't necessarily agree on what the actual core issue is here.  Without a good diagnosis and understanding, there can be no reasonable prescription.


----------



## Winter (Sep 10, 2020)

The fact that they use the numbers from the post war peaks as their base line instead of going further back shows evidence that their data is already flawed. When you show all the data, not some, the peaks are shown as outliers.  There are too many unique events that have a large impact on membership numbers to just look at totals to make the claims that they are.  The affect of the enlightenment, the post war spikes, the Morgan affair.  What is the natural membership number for an esoteric organization?  Because the fact is, in a given population, the number of men that want to belong to an esoteric order with a religious foundation is just not that big.  Beginning with the highest membership totals means that the decline in membership looks far worse than it actually is.  You can't call some data driven and then selectively show the data that supports your claim and exclude that data that doesn't.


----------



## Forthright (Sep 10, 2020)

Winter said:


> The fact that they use the numbers from the post war peaks as their base line instead of going further back shows evidence that their data is already flawed. .



No, actually that data is partially a demonstration of the problem.  Everybody uses that data because it's practically the only data that exists on a national basis.  And it's several years out of date (MSANA hasn't published it the last few years).   Also "they" (who provided the data) is the Masonic Services Association of North America.



Winter said:


> When you show all the data, not some, the peaks are shown as outliers.  There are too many unique events that have a large impact on membership numbers to just look at totals to make the claims that they are.



This can be frustrating because you're demonstrating the point here.  They are showing all the available data.  If you've got more, please bring it!   Yes -- showing the data in this way has biases and issues.  The point is that nobody has anything better it seems, and that's a problem.  Let's find & collect better data so that we can make better conclusions.



Winter said:


> What is the natural membership number for an esoteric organization? Because the fact is, in a given population, the number of men that want to belong to an esoteric order with a religious foundation is just not that big



You are again demonstrating the point by representing opinions as facts.  This has not been established, and there is no data for this "fact".

Perhaps it would be a good thing if Masons had more hard facts and actual data.   In any organization I've participated in (completely setting aside Masonry) typically leadership wants facts in order to make wise decisions on stewardship & direction.  This seems uncontroversial.


----------



## Winter (Sep 10, 2020)

Forthright said:


> You are again demonstrating the point by representing opinions as facts.  This has not been established, and there is no data for this "fact".



Which is exactly what Data Driven Masonry is doing by making an inference using incomplete data.  You're proving my point.


----------



## TheThumbPuppy (Sep 10, 2020)

Winter said:


> The fact that they use the numbers from the post war peaks as their base line instead of going further back shows evidence that their data is already flawed



I couldn't help myself making the parallel with some graphs I've seen that aim at convincing people that the world is going to end in 10 years because the increase in temperature caused by CO2 is going to kill us all.

Those graphs usually starts at the minimum temperatures last century – around 1950 if memory serves me correctly – and ignore that in the 1910's, 20's and 30's temperatures were soaring higher than now. They also ignore the higher temperatures during part of the Middle Ages. In fact they also edit out that there is no relationship between temperature and the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. During some eras the earth had high temperatures and low CO2, during other eras it had low temperatures and far higher CO2 than now, and all sort of permutation. In fact the era with the highest number of animal species was one with very high CO2. But I digress.

I also had the impression that the data presented by this website is only limited to one thing – number of members – which has never been a very significant thing in Freemasonry for me. If joining an association with a large number of members was important for me, I would have possibly joined something else. And within that one specific area, the only data presented in a graph form is incomplete and starts at a recognised historical maximum.

Similarly to the example above, this type of data analysis is faulty because the source data is incomplete and it's cut in a way to prove an aprioristic conclusion. That's putting the cart before the horse.

The cause-effect relationship between a declining number of masons and the end of Freemasonry is also a conclusion, which is in fact not based on logic. It is very possible that the number of members was inflated by other reasons or fringe benefits and it's now returning to a lower number of people interested in the core values of Freemasonry. And that number will always be a very small percentage of the population.


----------



## TheThumbPuppy (Sep 11, 2020)

JamestheJust said:


> Personally I think the real problem is that new members only stay a year or so.



I do not want to sound like I'm picking on you, because that's not my intention.

However this is another generalisation that I don't think is quite true.

Perhaps one could say that "_*some*_ new members only stay a year or so", which could be a good topic to explore.

Personally I have no experience if that is a phenomenon that happens now more than in the past.

However it is very possible that someone may experience Freemasonry and find out that it's not what they thought it would be. Perhaps they expected something that Freemasonry is not designed to offer. Perhaps they didn't like some aspect of a specific Lodge and moved on to another Lodge. Perhaps their work circumstances changed and had to put their attendance on hold. Perhaps they were lured in by a marketing campaign that didn't quite keep its promises.

In any case I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that we have to change what we do or how we do it because some new members only stay a year or so.

I think that the difference between making members and making Masons, that was mentioned earlier in this thread, is pivotal in this discussion.


----------



## Bloke (Sep 29, 2020)

If size and numbers matter, then there are two issues;
1 Our *Birth Rate* is down &
2 Our *Retention *in many lodges is not good.

Me, I like the title and concept "data driven Masonry" but data is only useful when converted to information.

I remember this initial survey. It was posted here. Some of the questions had clear cognitive bias.

We need to identify the bias in our information and thinking.

And the one cognitive bias which seems every present in Freemasonry is Dunning-Kruger.

Personally it is my opinion we will live and die on Fraternalism in the context of the values of Freemasonry. Yes, education, knowledge and wisdom are aspects of that, and we don't make Freemasons by doing Degrees, we do it by education and self awareness, but, with my mantra friendship is the engine of a lodge, and what makes the friendship worthwhile is *value *and *values*. Those two things are key. Being in the company of good men who value honour, integrity, good conduct and treating people well, self improvement, the GAOTU, with self reflection and an aspiration to be a better man while being happy and communicating happiness to others.

There are a lot of Freemasons who make all sorts of claims, including me in the above, but they don't back it up by data transformed into information... however even if the data gathered in this project is faulted in some way, it is still worth looking at, ever vigilant for methodology faults and bias. Check on Facebook, I know Jon Ruark is giving a talk in a Melb (Victoria Australia) Lodge this Sat night. I will slip in and see what he has to say..


----------

