Pictures of the EcQ

Thanks to Jared I found out my Mac at home actually had an easy to use Grapher program. So...

I've spend some time fiddling with the program and plotting the EcQ. Jared's picture from the prior post was an unconstrained plot for all values of X and Y. But, since our MET and SIT terms only go from 0.0 to 1.0, only a part of that picture is really in play. These pictures show the relevant part of the function.

First, here's an angle from behind the EcQ (vertical) axis. The SIT score runs out toward the left and the MET score runs out toward the right:

Looking at the graph you can see that the EcQ captures the theology I intended. First, note that if your MET (Moral Exemplar Term) is zero your EcQ stays pegged at zero no matter how high (or low) your SIT (Social Influence Term) gets. Thus, no matter how socially influential you are, if you are a poor moral example your ecclesial contribution is zip.

Second, look at the next picture. Here the SIT axis is now running from your right to left and the MET is running away from you (i.e, increasing). Thus, as your MET increases your EcQ begins to take off. But note that the rise on the right side of the graph pegs out much lower than the rise on the left side.

This lopsidedness is due to the fact that on the right side of the graph your Social Influence Term is low and on the left side it is higher. Thus, although a high MET score results in a net positive EcQ, having a high SIT--you have a lot of social Oomph--yields a greater score.

In this final picture, the MET axis now faces you, increasing from left to right. This angle nicely shows the peak of the High MET/Low SIT person compared to the peak (seen in the far distance) of the High MET and High SIT person.

Overall, then, I'm theologically satisfied with the shape of the EcQ function.

P.S. Thanks for indulging me about the EcQ. I'm now finished with it. Have a great weekend!

This entry was posted by Richard Beck. Bookmark the permalink.

4 thoughts on “Pictures of the EcQ”

  1. What about the thin red line? I am surprised you can resist the temptation to chart salvation on your graph, even if it is just to be absurd. The satirical applications of the EcQ make my mouth water.

    I enjoyed the series.


  2. Dear Prof Beck,

    I believe you can improve your EcQ quotient (make the model more robust) by including NEGATIVE numbers for those misguided souls whose contributions (regardless of intention) subtract from his/her church's efforts by repulsing extant congregation members and/or driving potential members (outsiders) to other churches, to other denominations, or away from all organized faiths.

    For example, a pious soul with high MET but repulsive personality (negative SIT) may make a small negative contribution to his/her church by driving members to other churches. Likewise, a charismatic (high SIT) evil leader (NEGATIVE MET) like Jim Jones, Ayatollah Khomeini, or Osama bin Ladin would produce a huge negative contribution to his/her Church or denomination.

  3. (First comment for your site. I don't even remember where I found you, but you may receive more comments as I get time to pick over your blog.)

    This is interesting stuff. I agree with anonymous above. There should be negative factors as well, not just zeros. Overall, every community has negative influences. Above recognized negative METs (very true), but I've also seen negative SITs as well. For example: in a congregation that I'm aware of, the mavens, actually cause major negative impacts for the salesmen scores of all others in the church by declaring that work to be invalid by all others but themselves and those they appoint.

    Also, I'm not convinced of the relationship of MET to SIT. Gonna let that one sit for a while. Initially it seems OK, but something bugs me about it.

Leave a Reply